I don't think they're supposed to be out in heavy seas, are they? Might cause gin to be spilled.
I doubt its ocean going, but it's not a problem for a boat to get wet. The problem is when the boat fills with water. Looks like it has scuppers.
On careful study, that blue fender around the stern looks as though it could be lifted.
That sort of solution gives me the absolute willies, even if it is as robustly designed as it should be ... so many times, that's been the weak point in vessel sinkings. My dad (ex-RN) did not like travelling in ro-ro ferries, even before the Zeebrugge disaster.
That's more or less what the swimming tanks tried on D-Day. Did not end well.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Dominic Cummings has stopped using Twitter so if Twitter is the real world, Cummings will seem to be quiet. As you say, he is emailing, substacking and Q&A-ing. His latest idea is the MAD doctrine of nuclear deterrence is badly flawed and we're all going to die.
Oh no, just when I'd gone the other way! I started off thinking it fatally flawed, then got to where I am now - that it not only works but it's the only thing which can work as long as WMD nukes exist.
I worked hard to get here too. It was key to peace of mind. So I will NOT be reading Cummings on the matter.
I think you are a better strategic thinker than Cummings based on your ending positions on this matter.
So long as there are any NW, MAD makes sense. The other option is total subservience to those who have NW and are willing to use them (or threaten to use them in a credible manner). It does not mean that the MAD outcome is 100% safe. It just means it is the best stable(-ish) equilibrium.
No, Cummings point is that MAD makes sense if you live in a world where both sides are ruled by sane people and where accidents and misunderstandings cannot happen. Now for 40 odd years we were lucky that mostly the first applied and secondly those unforeseen events were prevented from escalating to war by the single individuals, usually very low down the command chain, making a key choice at the right moment. But in hindsight we now know that we were unbelievably, undeservedly lucky that there were people with sufficient intelligence and common sense to make those crucial decisions at the right moment.
At some point that luck will inevitably run out.
Now it is debatable whether that is an argument against the MAD theory as the alternative may well be worse. But the current thinking is based on the idea that MAD works and that the prevention of nuclear exchanges to date is a function of it working properly. In fact the lack of such exchanges in the last 70 years is, to a very large extent, a matter of pure luck.
But my point is that, even if the other party is not sane, unilateral disarmament and foregoing of MAD is still a worse option than sticking with MAD. Game theory does not provide perfect solutions, it just points to best 'equilibria', even if in a multi-time period these equilibria are not necessarily themselves stable. Having a mad person with the finger on the button does not change the overall dynamics, it just worsens the values of each of the positions
Of course it changes the dynamics. MAD works if both sides fear a failure of the balance. If one side does not fear that failure or thinks it is a price worth paying then the dynamic ceases to exist. This is why the nuclear deterrent doesn't work with religious fanatic terrorists. If they don't fear the apocalypse, or if they welcome it as they think they will survive and a new order will follow then there is no threat to them from MAD.
That only holds true for lunatics from whom apocalypse is acceptable. You are not seriously suggesting that that is what we are dealing with with Putin? Putin may be somewhat detached from reality recently, but he clearly wants a Russian Empire to survive whatever he does. And the same will hold for all imaginable leaders of nuclear states/empires.
And what answer is there to a mad monk with a nuke? Disarmament?
So I would argue that there are at least two separate problems - the one with sane actors or actors who fear the apocalypse (for which we must have a strategy and MAD remains the best option), and one were we are dealing with the as yet mythical beast of a messiah seeking the end of humanity.
There may be no answer to that latter problem, but that in no way obviates the need for an answer to the former.
An answer which still ignores the massive element of luck that brought us to this point without a nuclear exchange. It is the same sort of quasi-religious argument that claims the development of humanity was inevitable because we are here at the end of a massive chain of random chance.
We have been lucky to date. That is no guarantee that we will be lucky going forward.
I have seen superyachts with hideously dangerous form-over-function design issues. That said, it doesn't really matter having water sloshing in provided it has no alternative but to slosh straight out again. If you google for images of platform supply vessels they tend to have a very low stern.
Do the owners actually travel anywhere in them, or do they fly in and use them as a conveniently parked caravan / party location?
Mainly the latter.
And if you charter one, the contract usually stipulates you can only be at sea for 6 hours per day and only in daylight hours.
I imagined that was the case.
No wonder form presides over function if it is only ever meant to be parked in Monaco or Dubai whilst looking just a bit more outrageous than its neighbour.
Huh? It has an absolutely vital function of providing a fantastic floating hotel, bar, water sports venue, water park and nightclub.
If you want to sail the atlantic call on Greta.
Function as a means of floating transport, I mean, as opposed to function as a gin palace. Although I hear one or two have second lives as internet cable cutters.
You'd think it would get a bit dull after a while, though. Where's the adventure? Sailing the Atlantic sounds much more fun.
As a Tory who'd prefer a new leader this poll shows no change - yesterday's from a different pollster showed a declining Labour lead. Both following a budget slated in the media, suggesting the public view may be more nuanced. Neither showed a Labour surge. What is your explanation for the Tories doing so relatively well.
I remember you saying just about a year ago, that Labour was doomed
So you cannot answer. If I did say that it just shows how much politics can change in a very short time. Maybe you might want to think about that.
Don't you live in Spain? What do you know about anything happening here?
I have seen superyachts with hideously dangerous form-over-function design issues. That said, it doesn't really matter having water sloshing in provided it has no alternative but to slosh straight out again. If you google for images of platform supply vessels they tend to have a very low stern.
Do the owners actually travel anywhere in them, or do they fly in and use them as a conveniently parked caravan / party location?
I've never understood why people think it is a good thing to stay somewhere with a view of a marina. It's just a waterlogged caravan/car park.
I want to see the water, uncluttered by oversized bathtubs.
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Dominic Cummings has stopped using Twitter so if Twitter is the real world, Cummings will seem to be quiet. As you say, he is emailing, substacking and Q&A-ing. His latest idea is the MAD doctrine of nuclear deterrence is badly flawed and we're all going to die.
Oh no, just when I'd gone the other way! I started off thinking it fatally flawed, then got to where I am now - that it not only works but it's the only thing which can work as long as WMD nukes exist.
I worked hard to get here too. It was key to peace of mind. So I will NOT be reading Cummings on the matter.
I think you are a better strategic thinker than Cummings based on your ending positions on this matter.
So long as there are any NW, MAD makes sense. The other option is total subservience to those who have NW and are willing to use them (or threaten to use them in a credible manner). It does not mean that the MAD outcome is 100% safe. It just means it is the best stable(-ish) equilibrium.
No, Cummings point is that MAD makes sense if you live in a world where both sides are ruled by sane people and where accidents and misunderstandings cannot happen. Now for 40 odd years we were lucky that mostly the first applied and secondly those unforeseen events were prevented from escalating to war by the single individuals, usually very low down the command chain, making a key choice at the right moment. But in hindsight we now know that we were unbelievably, undeservedly lucky that there were people with sufficient intelligence and common sense to make those crucial decisions at the right moment.
At some point that luck will inevitably run out.
Now it is debatable whether that is an argument against the MAD theory as the alternative may well be worse. But the current thinking is based on the idea that MAD works and that the prevention of nuclear exchanges to date is a function of it working properly. In fact the lack of such exchanges in the last 70 years is, to a very large extent, a matter of pure luck.
That's kind of where I was before. If MAD per se is impeccable it follows that the safest possible world - from nuclear holocaust - is one where every country has nuclear WMDs and can thus partake of some MAD. We instinctively know this is a nonsense therefore the first assertion is also a nonsense. MAD does not 'work' in that sense.
But your last para is key. Given where we are, and the impossibility of simultaneous mass mothballing, MAD is the best we've got. And it IS working right now in this conflagration. Plus it almost certainly will carry on doing so. This is what I concluded when I thought about it properly and it was a welcome conclusion to reach.
Clearly, increasing the number of participants makes any 'game' more complicated to model at the same time as increasing the risk of at least one madman at the helm.
Negotiating down nuclear stockpiles is the only sane approach, but eliminating them is problematic/impossible. MAD doesn't have to apply to the entire planet - just the elites in every country possessing nuclear weapons.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Dominic Cummings has stopped using Twitter so if Twitter is the real world, Cummings will seem to be quiet. As you say, he is emailing, substacking and Q&A-ing. His latest idea is the MAD doctrine of nuclear deterrence is badly flawed and we're all going to die.
Oh no, just when I'd gone the other way! I started off thinking it fatally flawed, then got to where I am now - that it not only works but it's the only thing which can work as long as WMD nukes exist.
I worked hard to get here too. It was key to peace of mind. So I will NOT be reading Cummings on the matter.
I think you are a better strategic thinker than Cummings based on your ending positions on this matter.
So long as there are any NW, MAD makes sense. The other option is total subservience to those who have NW and are willing to use them (or threaten to use them in a credible manner). It does not mean that the MAD outcome is 100% safe. It just means it is the best stable(-ish) equilibrium.
No, Cummings point is that MAD makes sense if you live in a world where both sides are ruled by sane people and where accidents and misunderstandings cannot happen. Now for 40 odd years we were lucky that mostly the first applied and secondly those unforeseen events were prevented from escalating to war by the single individuals, usually very low down the command chain, making a key choice at the right moment. But in hindsight we now know that we were unbelievably, undeservedly lucky that there were people with sufficient intelligence and common sense to make those crucial decisions at the right moment.
At some point that luck will inevitably run out.
Now it is debatable whether that is an argument against the MAD theory as the alternative may well be worse. But the current thinking is based on the idea that MAD works and that the prevention of nuclear exchanges to date is a function of it working properly. In fact the lack of such exchanges in the last 70 years is, to a very large extent, a matter of pure luck.
That's kind of where I was before. If MAD per se is impeccable it follows that the safest possible world - from nuclear holocaust - is one where every country has nuclear WMDs and can thus partake of some MAD. We instinctively know this is a nonsense therefore the first assertion is also a nonsense. MAD does not 'work' in that sense.
But your last para is key. Given where we are, and the impossibility of simultaneous mass mothballing, MAD is the best we've got. And it IS working right now in this conflagration. Plus it almost certainly will carry on doing so. This is what I concluded when I thought about it properly and it was a welcome conclusion to reach.
The thing is MAD was only ever a guarantor of security for those countries with nukes or in a nuclear armed alliance (NATO and erstwhile Warsaw Pact). It probably made the risks for non-nuclear countries either the same or somewhat higher, because they then get the focus of proxy wars.
I can see a scenario where every nation on earth being nuclear armed would probably increase the security of some previously non-nuclear countries (Iran for instance, Syria, most of the former CIS countries including Ukraine) but in total it would make the world more dangerous. It's a bit of a tragedy of the commons situation - makes sense for individual countries to proliferate but is net worse for the safety of the whole world.
I expect China being nuclear armed has had no discernible benefit for its security in recent years because it is so large militarily anyway. So too Britain and France for a different reason, because they are under the NATO and US nuclear umbrella, and North Korea because of Chinese protection. Whereas India and Pakistan have probably avoided major conflict because they have nukes.
Nuclear weapons of course only have any meaning in parts of the world where nation states invade other nation states. Almost completely irrelevant in Latin America or Sub-Saharan Africa where the vast majority of conflict has been either civil war and/or narcotics gang related.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Dominic Cummings has stopped using Twitter so if Twitter is the real world, Cummings will seem to be quiet. As you say, he is emailing, substacking and Q&A-ing. His latest idea is the MAD doctrine of nuclear deterrence is badly flawed and we're all going to die.
Oh no, just when I'd gone the other way! I started off thinking it fatally flawed, then got to where I am now - that it not only works but it's the only thing which can work as long as WMD nukes exist.
I worked hard to get here too. It was key to peace of mind. So I will NOT be reading Cummings on the matter.
I think you are a better strategic thinker than Cummings based on your ending positions on this matter.
So long as there are any NW, MAD makes sense. The other option is total subservience to those who have NW and are willing to use them (or threaten to use them in a credible manner). It does not mean that the MAD outcome is 100% safe. It just means it is the best stable(-ish) equilibrium.
No, Cummings point is that MAD makes sense if you live in a world where both sides are ruled by sane people and where accidents and misunderstandings cannot happen. Now for 40 odd years we were lucky that mostly the first applied and secondly those unforeseen events were prevented from escalating to war by the single individuals, usually very low down the command chain, making a key choice at the right moment. But in hindsight we now know that we were unbelievably, undeservedly lucky that there were people with sufficient intelligence and common sense to make those crucial decisions at the right moment.
At some point that luck will inevitably run out.
Now it is debatable whether that is an argument against the MAD theory as the alternative may well be worse. But the current thinking is based on the idea that MAD works and that the prevention of nuclear exchanges to date is a function of it working properly. In fact the lack of such exchanges in the last 70 years is, to a very large extent, a matter of pure luck.
But my point is that, even if the other party is not sane, unilateral disarmament and foregoing of MAD is still a worse option than sticking with MAD. Game theory does not provide perfect solutions, it just points to best 'equilibria', even if in a multi-time period these equilibria are not necessarily themselves stable. Having a mad person with the finger on the button does not change the overall dynamics, it just worsens the values of each of the positions
Of course it changes the dynamics. MAD works if both sides fear a failure of the balance. If one side does not fear that failure or thinks it is a price worth paying then the dynamic ceases to exist. This is why the nuclear deterrent doesn't work with religious fanatic terrorists. If they don't fear the apocalypse, or if they welcome it as they think they will survive and a new order will follow then there is no threat to them from MAD.
That only holds true for lunatics from whom apocalypse is acceptable. You are not seriously suggesting that that is what we are dealing with with Putin? Putin may be somewhat detached from reality recently, but he clearly wants a Russian Empire to survive whatever he does. And the same will hold for all imaginable leaders of nuclear states/empires.
And what answer is there to a mad monk with a nuke? Disarmament?
So I would argue that there are at least two separate problems - the one with sane actors or actors who fear the apocalypse (for which we must have a strategy and MAD remains the best option), and one were we are dealing with the as yet mythical beast of a messiah seeking the end of humanity.
There may be no answer to that latter problem, but that in no way obviates the need for an answer to the former.
An answer which still ignores the massive element of luck that brought us to this point without a nuclear exchange. It is the same sort of quasi-religious argument that claims the development of humanity was inevitable because we are here at the end of a massive chain of random chance.
We have been lucky to date. That is no guarantee that we will be lucky going forward.
But all solutions involve luck. Whilst even one nation has NW, the world will need luck for them not to be used.
Saying MAD is rubbish because it relies on an element of luck is nonsense when every other potential solution also relies on luck, mostly to an even greater extent.
While back on PB, your truly suggested that the Harry & Megan versus Will & Kate & etc., etc. split in the Royal Family was in large measure due to the shit-for-brains trust currently managing The Firm.
And was told (I paraphrase) bite your fool colonial tongue, the men and women assisting HM and the rest are among Britain's best and brightest.
Personally think that cack-handed mis-management of the recent Royal Tour of West Indies is a BIG argument in favor of my thesis.
Unless of course you believe the Daily Mail. Which on this subject (at least) is less credible than even Boris Johnson 24/7?
While back on PB, your truly suggested that the Harry & Megan versus Will & Kate & etc., etc. split in the Royal Family was in large measure due to the shit-for-brains trust currently managing The Firm.
And was told (I paraphrase) bite your fool colonial tongue, the men and women assisting HM and the rest are among Britain's best and brightest.
Personally think that cack-handed mis-management of the recent Royal Tour of West Indies is a BIG argument in favor of my thesis.
Unless of course you believe the Daily Mail. Which on this subject (at least) is less credible than even Boris Johnson 24/7?
LOL. Or unless you really can't give a shit about the Royal Family one way or the other.
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
So somebody was asking, what did Putin get for all that Ruski money contributed to the Tory Party?
Besides influence peddling & security tampering.
I don't know why you're asking when you're clearly not really interested in the subject and just repeatedly parrot the same talking points.
Another point about the massive Gin Palaces....many don't even sail into waters very far out from land e.g. from the Med to the Atlantic these days. There are specialist ships that take them.
Another point about the massive Gin Palaces....many don't even sail into waters very far out from land e.g. from the Med to the Atlantic these days. There are specialist ships that take them.
Yep, way cheaper to send it on a transporter across the ocean, than run the engines for several days to get it across the Atlantic in the autumn. Leave it in Sicily or Nice in September, pick it up in Miami or Bridgetown a couple of weeks later.
There was a documentary on these boat transporters a couple of years ago, quite the operation to get several boats loaded onto the big ship. https://youtube.com/watch?v=yDJfx44AoG8
Another point about the massive Gin Palaces....many don't even sail into waters very far out from land e.g. from the Med to the Atlantic these days. There are specialist ships that take them.
Yep, way cheaper to send it on a transporter across the ocean, than run the engines for several days to get it across the Atlantic in the autumn. Leave it in Sicily or Nice in September, pick it up in Miami or Bridgetown a couple of weeks later.
There was a documentary on these boat transporters a couple of years ago, quite the operation to get several boats loaded onto the big ship. https://youtube.com/watch?v=yDJfx44AoG8
Friend of mine did that with his yacht in the Windies - one way. Sailed it the other way from Hants.
As a Tory who'd prefer a new leader this poll shows no change - yesterday's from a different pollster showed a declining Labour lead. Both following a budget slated in the media, suggesting the public view may be more nuanced. Neither showed a Labour surge. What is your explanation for the Tories doing so relatively well.
I remember you saying just about a year ago, that Labour was doomed
So you cannot answer. If I did say that it just shows how much politics can change in a very short time. Maybe you might want to think about that.
Don't you live in Spain? What do you know about anything happening here?
Really horse? That would preclude a lot of other people too. Indeed what do I know of what is happening in London, or Bristol for that matter? Perhaps people should only comment on their own specific lives.
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
So somebody was asking, what did Putin get for all that Ruski money contributed to the Tory Party?
Besides influence peddling & security tampering.
I don't know why you're asking when you're clearly not really interested in the subject and just repeatedly parrot the same talking points.
I'm VERY interested in the subject of Boris Johnson - Tory Party ties to Putin.
Would assume that a real (as opposed to 'true") Conservative would also be concerned. But maybe not.
Walked past that yacht a while back and googled it (EDIT: the blue one in the original post, not the white Lady Ghislaine). It's an ugly piece of kit. Some yachts really aren't very attractive.
I think if I were to get a multi-million pound gin palace I'd opt for the more nautical ocean-going, you know the kind of thing: polished teak, some pretence at sails, round portholes, the kind of boat that might feature in a Ralph Lauren ad shot somewhere off the coast of Maine.
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
I don't see it as a win for Russia.
- it does not have a pliant regime in Kyiv headed by its hand-picked stooge.
- it has kept Ukraine out of NATO, but at the cost of Finland likely joining - a thousand miles of new border with NATO. Plus Sweden moving from neutral to a NATO member too. It can forget any attempt to reacquire the Baltic states.
- whilst not in NATO, Ukraine will likely eventually join the EU. If the EU has its own Article 5 equivalent to NATO, it is effectively NATO by the back door.
- so Russia now has an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by the West with the latest defensive technology and sanctions.
- Russia now has its former hydrocarbons clients going pell-mell to avoid ever having to buy them again (within the next 5 years, down to 0). It will have to sell to Asia at knock-down prices to get any foreign currency.
- Russia will find it very, very difficult to attract material inward investment for at least a decade. Business will see Shell, BP having to walk away from billions and think "Nah - not for us...."
- Russia's military has to go away and do a fundamental rethink. It has lost billions in kit. A $25m tank gets destroyed by a weapon costing a thousandth of that, handed over for free in their thousands. It has been shown to be unfit for purpose in so many respects.
- Crimea and Donbas are going to be looking at a neighbour where umpteen billions are being poured in to make it a better place to live than Russia will ever provide for them. Their brightest and best will drain away. Crimea and Donbas will end up as ageing shit holes. Resentment may eventually grow at what poor life choices have been imposed on them.
Agree with most of this, although I think the fungibility of hydrocarbon sales will mitigate that issue, and there will always be others willing to take the risk to invest in a potentially large market, even when they know others have lost their shirts. So it won't be a total investment famine for Russia, but it will, as you say, have a large overall negative impact on inward investments, including the most of the highest end tech companies.
The fungibility of hydrocarbon sales is the key part: ultimately, if Russia puts oil on a tanker, someone will buy it, and the discount for being Russia in origin will be in the cents.
Still: Russia faces two very serious issues in its energy sector
Firstly, Russia has limited natural gas pipeline export capacity to China (and that wont be solved quickly). And they've put themselves in a very weak negotiating position for additional piped gas.
Secondly, Russia's hydrocarbon production is incredibly dependent on kit from Halliburton/Schlumberger/Baker Hughes. Without expensive kit (and the people to operate it), Russia will struggle to maintain production levels. Decline rates on existing fields - absent investment and Western kit - are likely to be pretty horrendous. So Russia may lose oil exports, even if the world is buying its oil again.
The second is the killer. There have always been people willing to buy oil from Venezuela - the country with the largest reserves in the world. The fact that they have been a basket case as far as oil exports goes for the last decade is not down to lack of potential customers but lack of technological knowhow and kit.
That's the other loss for Russia. The US seems now to be talking seriously to Venezuela.
The does require the Maduro government to behave sensibly. Is there any evidence that they will do that?
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Dominic Cummings has stopped using Twitter so if Twitter is the real world, Cummings will seem to be quiet. As you say, he is emailing, substacking and Q&A-ing. His latest idea is the MAD doctrine of nuclear deterrence is badly flawed and we're all going to die.
Oh no, just when I'd gone the other way! I started off thinking it fatally flawed, then got to where I am now - that it not only works but it's the only thing which can work as long as WMD nukes exist.
I worked hard to get here too. It was key to peace of mind. So I will NOT be reading Cummings on the matter.
I think you are a better strategic thinker than Cummings based on your ending positions on this matter.
So long as there are any NW, MAD makes sense. The other option is total subservience to those who have NW and are willing to use them (or threaten to use them in a credible manner). It does not mean that the MAD outcome is 100% safe. It just means it is the best stable(-ish) equilibrium.
Thanks. I am pondering whether to buy the book. Do you have a view?
The reason I am hesitant is that there is nothing new in analyzing politico-military-economic issues through the prism of what the other side knows and thinks. That is, after all, the very basis of both game theory and behavioural economics. So does this book really add a new perspective on MAD?
I ask, because with my involvement with assessing societal risks of synthetic biology, I have come across far too many people who, new to the field, keep on reinventing the wheel thinking that they have insights that we, who have been doing it for decades, do not. Time is too precious.
Payne has written a more recent book on the subject. I know nothing except that Cummings has read and will be summarising them. I believe that part of it is based on what we discovered during Glasnost was that everything the Pentagon thought it knew about Soviet military thinking was wrong.
As a Tory who'd prefer a new leader this poll shows no change - yesterday's from a different pollster showed a declining Labour lead. Both following a budget slated in the media, suggesting the public view may be more nuanced. Neither showed a Labour surge. What is your explanation for the Tories doing so relatively well.
I remember you saying just about a year ago, that Labour was doomed
So you cannot answer. If I did say that it just shows how much politics can change in a very short time. Maybe you might want to think about that.
Don't you live in Spain? What do you know about anything happening here?
Really horse? That would preclude a lot of other people too. Indeed what do I know of what is happening in London, or Bristol for that matter? Perhaps people should only comment on their own specific lives.
He claims I don't know what I'm talking about, only fair.
Another point about the massive Gin Palaces....many don't even sail into waters very far out from land e.g. from the Med to the Atlantic these days. There are specialist ships that take them.
Yep, way cheaper to send it on a transporter across the ocean, than run the engines for several days to get it across the Atlantic in the autumn. Leave it in Sicily or Nice in September, pick it up in Miami or Bridgetown a couple of weeks later.
There was a documentary on these boat transporters a couple of years ago, quite the operation to get several boats loaded onto the big ship. https://youtube.com/watch?v=yDJfx44AoG8
Friend of mine did that with his yacht in the Windies - one way. Sailed it the other way from Hants.
Quite common, because here to there by the trade wind route is, as they say, plain sailing, other way via Azores is a pain in the arse and takes forever. I sailed Canaries- St Lucia 4 years ago on a 45 ft boat which then stayed in the Caribbean to do various races and came back by ship in March
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
So somebody was asking, what did Putin get for all that Ruski money contributed to the Tory Party?
Besides influence peddling & security tampering.
I don't know why you're asking when you're clearly not really interested in the subject and just repeatedly parrot the same talking points.
I'm VERY interested in the subject of Boris Johnson - Tory Party ties to Putin.
Would assume that a real (as opposed to 'true") Conservative would also be concerned. But maybe not.
I've never seen any indication from you that you are asking in good faith. Pointing the finger at Boris Johnson and the UK more generally has been a convenient distraction for those who genuinely have been in the pay of Russia.
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Of any country with a high population density, the UK has done pretty well on Covid. I wonder what Cummings says about that.
The same as I would say - that the fact we are on a par with other countries is no excuse for claiming that we could not have saved far more people had we done things differently. Also that had we done things the way some people in the current administration wanted to then things would have been far worse.
It is a fundamentally stupid answer to say that just because we did some things okay we should ignore the fact that we did many many things wrongly and that as a result a lot of people died who would not otherwise have had to.
Or my preferred take: just because we did some things well we should not ignore the fact that we have needlessly placed a crippling financial burden on the younger generation to save a relatively small number of lives.
As a Tory who'd prefer a new leader this poll shows no change - yesterday's from a different pollster showed a declining Labour lead. Both following a budget slated in the media, suggesting the public view may be more nuanced. Neither showed a Labour surge. What is your explanation for the Tories doing so relatively well.
I remember you saying just about a year ago, that Labour was doomed
So you cannot answer. If I did say that it just shows how much politics can change in a very short time. Maybe you might want to think about that.
Don't you live in Spain? What do you know about anything happening here?
You do know a considerable number of posters do not live in the UK and in many cases post better than some who do live here
As a Tory who'd prefer a new leader this poll shows no change - yesterday's from a different pollster showed a declining Labour lead. Both following a budget slated in the media, suggesting the public view may be more nuanced. Neither showed a Labour surge. What is your explanation for the Tories doing so relatively well.
I remember you saying just about a year ago, that Labour was doomed
So you cannot answer. If I did say that it just shows how much politics can change in a very short time. Maybe you might want to think about that.
Don't you live in Spain? What do you know about anything happening here?
You do know a considerable number of posters do not live in the UK and in many cases post better than some who do live here
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
So somebody was asking, what did Putin get for all that Ruski money contributed to the Tory Party?
Besides influence peddling & security tampering.
I don't know why you're asking when you're clearly not really interested in the subject and just repeatedly parrot the same talking points.
I'm VERY interested in the subject of Boris Johnson - Tory Party ties to Putin.
Would assume that a real (as opposed to 'true") Conservative would also be concerned. But maybe not.
I've never seen any indication from you that you are asking in good faith. Pointing the finger at Boris Johnson and the UK more generally has been a convenient distraction for those who genuinely have been in the pay of Russia.
Well that ain't me . . . their checks have stopped clearing for some reason . . .
I won't return the coin and accuse YOU of bad faith, let alone being in the pay of Putin.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Of any country with a high population density, the UK has done pretty well on Covid. I wonder what Cummings says about that.
The same as I would say - that the fact we are on a par with other countries is no excuse for claiming that we could not have saved far more people had we done things differently. Also that had we done things the way some people in the current administration wanted to then things would have been far worse.
It is a fundamentally stupid answer to say that just because we did some things okay we should ignore the fact that we did many many things wrongly and that as a result a lot of people died who would not otherwise have had to.
Difficult as it is to say, I don't think that the number of people who died is the only metric to employ. I am sure the government was weighing up plenty of input factors for their decisions including a functioning society, the economy, and physical and mental health.
If it is at all possible there should be an enquiry which is devoid of political point scoring. There should of course be lessons learned (I'm guessing a sh&tload of those lessons will be around the care home policy) and then we are better armed for the next crisis.
It is reasonable to think that people did as well as they possibly could under the circumstances with some actions that turned out to be huge errors. These should not be glossed over but neither should there be a "gotcha" environment.
I do agree with you about the 'gotcha' environment. But I don't think this is what Cummings is indulging in, even if others may try and use what he writes to that end. If we don't look critically and in detail at what went wrong (and right) then we will learn nothing. There seems to be little appetite from the Government to look seriously at what they did wrong and little appetite from their opponents to look at what went right. Cummings for all his undeniable hatred of some individuals in particular - Hancock being a prime example - has regularly made comment on what went right and has been fulsome in his praise of individuals, often quite low in the food chain, within the Civil Service who moved mountains to get things done and undoubtedly saved many lives. But there seems to be no willingness on the part of those responsible both in Government and Opposition as well as their advisors and the wider Civil Service to acknowledge that they made some really bad decisions.
Agree, but it should be noted the Government and the Opposition had different responsibilities. The Government's job was to implement a suitable response to the pandemic. The Opposition's job was to scrutinize that response and hold the Government to account for it. I'd imagine the Inquiry will focus mainly on the first, on the Government.
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
I don't see it as a win for Russia.
- it does not have a pliant regime in Kyiv headed by its hand-picked stooge.
- it has kept Ukraine out of NATO, but at the cost of Finland likely joining - a thousand miles of new border with NATO. Plus Sweden moving from neutral to a NATO member too. It can forget any attempt to reacquire the Baltic states.
- whilst not in NATO, Ukraine will likely eventually join the EU. If the EU has its own Article 5 equivalent to NATO, it is effectively NATO by the back door.
- so Russia now has an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by the West with the latest defensive technology and sanctions.
- Russia now has its former hydrocarbons clients going pell-mell to avoid ever having to buy them again (within the next 5 years, down to 0). It will have to sell to Asia at knock-down prices to get any foreign currency.
- Russia will find it very, very difficult to attract material inward investment for at least a decade. Business will see Shell, BP having to walk away from billions and think "Nah - not for us...."
- Russia's military has to go away and do a fundamental rethink. It has lost billions in kit. A $25m tank gets destroyed by a weapon costing a thousandth of that, handed over for free in their thousands. It has been shown to be unfit for purpose in so many respects.
- Crimea and Donbas are going to be looking at a neighbour where umpteen billions are being poured in to make it a better place to live than Russia will ever provide for them. Their brightest and best will drain away. Crimea and Donbas will end up as ageing shit holes. Resentment may eventually grow at what poor life choices have been imposed on them.
Agree with most of this, although I think the fungibility of hydrocarbon sales will mitigate that issue, and there will always be others willing to take the risk to invest in a potentially large market, even when they know others have lost their shirts. So it won't be a total investment famine for Russia, but it will, as you say, have a large overall negative impact on inward investments, including the most of the highest end tech companies.
The fungibility of hydrocarbon sales is the key part: ultimately, if Russia puts oil on a tanker, someone will buy it, and the discount for being Russia in origin will be in the cents.
Still: Russia faces two very serious issues in its energy sector
Firstly, Russia has limited natural gas pipeline export capacity to China (and that wont be solved quickly). And they've put themselves in a very weak negotiating position for additional piped gas.
Secondly, Russia's hydrocarbon production is incredibly dependent on kit from Halliburton/Schlumberger/Baker Hughes. Without expensive kit (and the people to operate it), Russia will struggle to maintain production levels. Decline rates on existing fields - absent investment and Western kit - are likely to be pretty horrendous. So Russia may lose oil exports, even if the world is buying its oil again.
The second is the killer. There have always been people willing to buy oil from Venezuela - the country with the largest reserves in the world. The fact that they have been a basket case as far as oil exports goes for the last decade is not down to lack of potential customers but lack of technological knowhow and kit.
That's the other loss for Russia. The US seems now to be talking seriously to Venezuela.
The tragedy for Venezuela is that they may finally get to benefit from thawing relations with the US and inward investment into their oil industry just at the moment oil goes into inexorable decline as a global energy commodity. A few years of growth then net zero.
Net Zero does not mean the end of hydrocarbons by any means. Just under half of every barrel of oil is used for non energy needs. That is not going away any time soon - or ever.
Is it really that much? I thought it was 25-35% for petrochemical products.
As a Tory who'd prefer a new leader this poll shows no change - yesterday's from a different pollster showed a declining Labour lead. Both following a budget slated in the media, suggesting the public view may be more nuanced. Neither showed a Labour surge. What is your explanation for the Tories doing so relatively well.
I remember you saying just about a year ago, that Labour was doomed
So you cannot answer. If I did say that it just shows how much politics can change in a very short time. Maybe you might want to think about that.
Don't you live in Spain? What do you know about anything happening here?
You do know a considerable number of posters do not live in the UK and in many cases post better than some who do live here
As a Tory who'd prefer a new leader this poll shows no change - yesterday's from a different pollster showed a declining Labour lead. Both following a budget slated in the media, suggesting the public view may be more nuanced. Neither showed a Labour surge. What is your explanation for the Tories doing so relatively well.
I remember you saying just about a year ago, that Labour was doomed
So you cannot answer. If I did say that it just shows how much politics can change in a very short time. Maybe you might want to think about that.
Don't you live in Spain? What do you know about anything happening here?
You do know a considerable number of posters do not live in the UK and in many cases post better than some who do live here
Yes even Felix posts more useful stuff than you
Hmmm. Felix to outdo BiG as poster of the year... tricky.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Dominic Cummings has stopped using Twitter so if Twitter is the real world, Cummings will seem to be quiet. As you say, he is emailing, substacking and Q&A-ing. His latest idea is the MAD doctrine of nuclear deterrence is badly flawed and we're all going to die.
Oh no, just when I'd gone the other way! I started off thinking it fatally flawed, then got to where I am now - that it not only works but it's the only thing which can work as long as WMD nukes exist.
I worked hard to get here too. It was key to peace of mind. So I will NOT be reading Cummings on the matter.
I think you are a better strategic thinker than Cummings based on your ending positions on this matter.
So long as there are any NW, MAD makes sense. The other option is total subservience to those who have NW and are willing to use them (or threaten to use them in a credible manner). It does not mean that the MAD outcome is 100% safe. It just means it is the best stable(-ish) equilibrium.
No, Cummings point is that MAD makes sense if you live in a world where both sides are ruled by sane people and where accidents and misunderstandings cannot happen. Now for 40 odd years we were lucky that mostly the first applied and secondly those unforeseen events were prevented from escalating to war by the single individuals, usually very low down the command chain, making a key choice at the right moment. But in hindsight we now know that we were unbelievably, undeservedly lucky that there were people with sufficient intelligence and common sense to make those crucial decisions at the right moment.
At some point that luck will inevitably run out.
Now it is debatable whether that is an argument against the MAD theory as the alternative may well be worse. But the current thinking is based on the idea that MAD works and that the prevention of nuclear exchanges to date is a function of it working properly. In fact the lack of such exchanges in the last 70 years is, to a very large extent, a matter of pure luck.
But my point is that, even if the other party is not sane, unilateral disarmament and foregoing of MAD is still a worse option than sticking with MAD. Game theory does not provide perfect solutions, it just points to best 'equilibria', even if in a multi-time period these equilibria are not necessarily themselves stable. Having a mad person with the finger on the button does not change the overall dynamics, it just worsens the values of each of the positions
Of course it changes the dynamics. MAD works if both sides fear a failure of the balance. If one side does not fear that failure or thinks it is a price worth paying then the dynamic ceases to exist. This is why the nuclear deterrent doesn't work with religious fanatic terrorists. If they don't fear the apocalypse, or if they welcome it as they think they will survive and a new order will follow then there is no threat to them from MAD.
That only holds true for lunatics from whom apocalypse is acceptable. You are not seriously suggesting that that is what we are dealing with with Putin? Putin may be somewhat detached from reality recently, but he clearly wants a Russian Empire to survive whatever he does. And the same will hold for all imaginable leaders of nuclear states/empires.
And what answer is there to a mad monk with a nuke? Disarmament?
So I would argue that there are at least two separate problems - the one with sane actors or actors who fear the apocalypse (for which we must have a strategy and MAD remains the best option), and one were we are dealing with the as yet mythical beast of a messiah seeking the end of humanity.
There may be no answer to that latter problem, but that in no way obviates the need for an answer to the former.
An answer which still ignores the massive element of luck that brought us to this point without a nuclear exchange. It is the same sort of quasi-religious argument that claims the development of humanity was inevitable because we are here at the end of a massive chain of random chance.
We have been lucky to date. That is no guarantee that we will be lucky going forward.
But all solutions involve luck. Whilst even one nation has NW, the world will need luck for them not to be used.
Saying MAD is rubbish because it relies on an element of luck is nonsense when every other potential solution also relies on luck, mostly to an even greater extent.
I was not saying it was rubbish. What I was saying was that it is not the great safety net everyone believes it to be.
It will not, for example, stop the use of battlefield nukes in Ukraine- a claim that is made very often by talking heads both in the mainstream media and online. The Russians simply don't regard battlefield nukes as being anything other than a bigger bang. It is one part of their arsenal which will be brought into use if they feel it can give them a tactical advantage on the battlefield. The same goes for chemical weapons. What they do understand is the potential it has to shock the West and push them off balance in a way that the Russians can then take advantage of.
Thankfully our own intelligence and planning people in the military realise this and operate on the expectation that the Russians will use battlefield nukes at some point just as they have chemical weapons. The interesting problem is going to be convincing Western politicians that this is not, in Russian eyes, the escalation they perceive it to be.
Another point about the massive Gin Palaces....many don't even sail into waters very far out from land e.g. from the Med to the Atlantic these days. There are specialist ships that take them.
Yep, way cheaper to send it on a transporter across the ocean, than run the engines for several days to get it across the Atlantic in the autumn. Leave it in Sicily or Nice in September, pick it up in Miami or Bridgetown a couple of weeks later.
There was a documentary on these boat transporters a couple of years ago, quite the operation to get several boats loaded onto the big ship. https://youtube.com/watch?v=yDJfx44AoG8
Friend of mine did that with his yacht in the Windies - one way. Sailed it the other way from Hants.
There are yachts and there are yachts. The ones pictured on this thread are glorified garbage scows.
My guess is that your friend's was NOT that kind of yacht?
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
So somebody was asking, what did Putin get for all that Ruski money contributed to the Tory Party?
Besides influence peddling & security tampering.
I don't know why you're asking when you're clearly not really interested in the subject and just repeatedly parrot the same talking points.
I'm VERY interested in the subject of Boris Johnson - Tory Party ties to Putin.
Would assume that a real (as opposed to 'true") Conservative would also be concerned. But maybe not.
I consider myself a "real" Conservative (tho' not according to PB's self appointed arbiter of such matters as I have been known to vote against "Boris") and I am extremely concerned. In an ideal world there needs to be an independent enquiry into Russian (and Chinese) interference in British political life. That wouldn't just extend to Tories, but also SNP and Labour, and possibly other parties too. Sadly it will not happen, so it will all be kept under wraps and the gullible will refer to "The Russia Report" and believe that there is no evidence of Russian interference in political life.
1- Guarantors will intervene if Russia attacks after three days of consultations. They may provide arms, or impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine
2- In return, Ukraine becomes non-aligned, non-nuclear state, with no foreign bases but can join EU
3 - Ukraine, Russia to discuss the status of Crimea for the next 15 years. Ukraine won’t use violence to resolve the issue
4- Putin, Zelensky will personally discuss Donbas dispute.
Russia says security guarantees won’t cover Crimea and Donbas
How is it going to be ratified?
5- Ukraine will hold a referendum on the deal. If people approve it, then the guarantors will pass it through their individual parliaments
I’m a big fan on no more people getting hurt, but this is such an obvious non starter and load of rubbish. 😕
It doesn’t resolve Donbass.
What is definition of neutrality, no armed forces, defensive or offensive weaponry, air force, navy? Whatever is meant by neutrality, So easily worked round by west training and arming conventional force up to the hilt, training bases and stockpiles in NATO just yards from the border.
Which Guarantors provide a no fly zone over Ukraine versus Russia? Poland and Canada? How realistic is this?
IMO Guarantors would be daft to sign up to this, Though appreciate Poland heartfelt signing, everyone else including the UK couldn’t be sure what they are getting into or how to fulfil it when push comes to shove, so not daft enough to sign up as guarantor.
This approach isn’t going to end this military operation any time soon because its airy fairy can’t even see how it’s basis for something that can work. Back to drawing board whilst everyday people eating and drinking sewage. Disgusted at Putin regime and their mad ideas about azov nationalists and Ukraine history ☹
The guarantors are the major NATO members. It is basically NATO membership by the back door. Now, we can discuss whether we want a one way alliance (we defend you... you don't need to defend us), but this gurantorship is just an attempt to make NATO-protection more palatable to the Russians.
Re Donbass: yes, that is left open. Likewise, there's no mention of the coast.
The Ukrainian proposals seem to be: 2014 borders, but we get to join the EU and have effective NATO membership. And you get to claim that you kept us out of NATO and got international recognition for the Crimea.
Nah, they're dressing up a retreat from those two as part of a peace process but it's probably to reinforce other parts of the invasion force that have been hollowed out.
If their frontline units have taken 25-40% losses, as seems to be the case, then even if withdrawn from Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy, they will need some time to regroup before being committed to the front line again. And they will be further attrited during their retreat under fire.
There is some evidence that the Russian forces have already run through their normal reserve units, as T-60 tanks, presumably resurrected from storage, are now turning up dead on the battlefield.
Not withstanding the Russian casualties' witch have been high, as have the Ukrainians. Russia can and indeed appear to be pulling troops back over the boarder in the North east, which lets them rest and maybe even resupplied a bit, for where they can be moved to other parts of the war.
The Ukrainians even when they reach the boarder, cannot properly rest or be redeployed, as they don't know if the Russians will come back over that boarder. Thus giving an advantage to Russia.
I think you are vastly overestimating Russia's capacity to regroup, replace and resupply its mortally damaged elite units.
Vastly I think overstates it.
Yes, Russia is not going to get back full fighting strength in 5 days rest, or whatever, but it does not need to, it just needs a bit of rest, and can then be stronger than it is not, but not as strong as it was a month ago.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainians have also taken a lot of losses, and if they don't know when the Russians will be back cant rest in the same way,
thus comparative advantage to Russia.
I think you overestimate the ability of the Russian forces to quickly regroup.
For a start, a formation which has taken 20-30% losses, is not going to be in a hurry to get back into the fight. They are going to be shell shocked and desperate to avoid being in the next lot of losses.
Russia needs to pull fresh forces from other parts of the country. But in doing so, they weaken their hold there.
Now: can Russia take Mauripol and therefore hold a narrow sliver from the Donbass to the Crimea? Probably. But holding territory when the locals don't want you there, surrounded by land held by people who don't want you there...
And it's notable that the (admittedly Ukrainian) proposals circulated doesn't include any mention of the coastline.
Russia has an answer to that population Problem, they are deporting the population to camps in Russia, 60,000 from Mariupol, and over 400,000 total. thus problem solved for them, and they now have a bargaining chip, drop the sanctions or we don't give the people back, when they are released, Ukraine needs to find homes for them.
we can get an idea of the areas where the Russians are planning on keeping by where they are deporting people from, very very sad, and echoes, of soviet policy, Puyin is wicked, and sadly winning.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
Another point about the massive Gin Palaces....many don't even sail into waters very far out from land e.g. from the Med to the Atlantic these days. There are specialist ships that take them.
Yep, way cheaper to send it on a transporter across the ocean, than run the engines for several days to get it across the Atlantic in the autumn. Leave it in Sicily or Nice in September, pick it up in Miami or Bridgetown a couple of weeks later.
There was a documentary on these boat transporters a couple of years ago, quite the operation to get several boats loaded onto the big ship. https://youtube.com/watch?v=yDJfx44AoG8
Friend of mine did that with his yacht in the Windies - one way. Sailed it the other way from Hants.
There are yachts and there are yachts. The ones pictured on this thread are glorified garbage scows.
My guess is that your friend's was NOT that kind of yacht?
No, proper sailing catamaran. Have not seen it, but it is a proper boat. Not, as you say, a gash barge (in RN speak).
As a Tory who'd prefer a new leader this poll shows no change - yesterday's from a different pollster showed a declining Labour lead. Both following a budget slated in the media, suggesting the public view may be more nuanced. Neither showed a Labour surge. What is your explanation for the Tories doing so relatively well.
I remember you saying just about a year ago, that Labour was doomed
So you cannot answer. If I did say that it just shows how much politics can change in a very short time. Maybe you might want to think about that.
Don't you live in Spain? What do you know about anything happening here?
You do know a considerable number of posters do not live in the UK and in many cases post better than some who do live here
Yes even Felix posts more useful stuff than you
Hmmm. Felix to outdo BiG as poster of the year... tricky.
As a Tory who'd prefer a new leader this poll shows no change - yesterday's from a different pollster showed a declining Labour lead. Both following a budget slated in the media, suggesting the public view may be more nuanced. Neither showed a Labour surge. What is your explanation for the Tories doing so relatively well.
I remember you saying just about a year ago, that Labour was doomed
So you cannot answer. If I did say that it just shows how much politics can change in a very short time. Maybe you might want to think about that.
Don't you live in Spain? What do you know about anything happening here?
You do know a considerable number of posters do not live in the UK and in many cases post better than some who do live here
Yes even Felix posts more useful stuff than you
Hmmm. Felix to outdo BiG as poster of the year... tricky.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Of any country with a high population density, the UK has done pretty well on Covid. I wonder what Cummings says about that.
The same as I would say - that the fact we are on a par with other countries is no excuse for claiming that we could not have saved far more people had we done things differently. Also that had we done things the way some people in the current administration wanted to then things would have been far worse.
It is a fundamentally stupid answer to say that just because we did some things okay we should ignore the fact that we did many many things wrongly and that as a result a lot of people died who would not otherwise have had to.
Or my preferred take: just because we did some things well we should not ignore the fact that we have needlessly placed a crippling financial burden on the younger generation to save a relatively small number of lives.
An argument which ignores the fact that, had we not taken action, the consequences of the virus running rampant would have done far more economic damage in a completely uncontrolled way than was done by enforcing some controls.
I am not actually arguing for the fact they should have imposed more constraints. Just that some of what they did was, as far as I can see, pretty useless and they made some extremely bad mistakes which resulted in many more deaths than necessary but which could have been avoided and not necessarily with any greater cost.
As always my argument would be for better governance not more governance.
Q1 Were Soviet engineering standards, maintenance and design better at the end of 4 years of total war, the most destructive in human history, than Russian ones now?
Q2 Would a modern Russian tank start up with a bit of fettling after sitting on a plinth for 70 years?
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
So somebody was asking, what did Putin get for all that Ruski money contributed to the Tory Party?
Besides influence peddling & security tampering.
I don't know why you're asking when you're clearly not really interested in the subject and just repeatedly parrot the same talking points.
I'm VERY interested in the subject of Boris Johnson - Tory Party ties to Putin.
Would assume that a real (as opposed to 'true") Conservative would also be concerned. But maybe not.
I consider myself a "real" Conservative (tho' not according to PB's self appointed arbiter of such matters as I have been known to vote against "Boris") and I am extremely concerned. In an ideal world there needs to be an independent enquiry into Russian (and Chinese) interference in British political life. That wouldn't just extend to Tories, but also SNP and Labour, and possibly other parties too. Sadly it will not happen, so it will all be kept under wraps and the gullible will refer to "The Russia Report" and believe that there is no evidence of Russian interference in political life.
Agree totally. Esp. the point that Boris Johnson & Conservative Party are NOT the only politicos that have some 'splainin' to do.
And NOT just in UK, but also in USA - and do NOT mean just Republicans either.
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
So somebody was asking, what did Putin get for all that Ruski money contributed to the Tory Party?
Besides influence peddling & security tampering.
I don't know why you're asking when you're clearly not really interested in the subject and just repeatedly parrot the same talking points.
I'm VERY interested in the subject of Boris Johnson - Tory Party ties to Putin.
Would assume that a real (as opposed to 'true") Conservative would also be concerned. But maybe not.
I've never seen any indication from you that you are asking in good faith. Pointing the finger at Boris Johnson and the UK more generally has been a convenient distraction for those who genuinely have been in the pay of Russia.
Well that ain't me . . . their checks have stopped clearing for some reason . . .
I won't return the coin and accuse YOU of bad faith, let alone being in the pay of Putin.
If your interest is in good faith, what's your take on Alexander Temerko giving "Ruski money" to the Tories and lobbying for military help for Ukraine? An elaborate smokescreen to hide Putin's *real* plans?
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
I don't see it as a win for Russia.
- it does not have a pliant regime in Kyiv headed by its hand-picked stooge.
- it has kept Ukraine out of NATO, but at the cost of Finland likely joining - a thousand miles of new border with NATO. Plus Sweden moving from neutral to a NATO member too. It can forget any attempt to reacquire the Baltic states.
- whilst not in NATO, Ukraine will likely eventually join the EU. If the EU has its own Article 5 equivalent to NATO, it is effectively NATO by the back door.
- so Russia now has an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by the West with the latest defensive technology and sanctions.
- Russia now has its former hydrocarbons clients going pell-mell to avoid ever having to buy them again (within the next 5 years, down to 0). It will have to sell to Asia at knock-down prices to get any foreign currency.
- Russia will find it very, very difficult to attract material inward investment for at least a decade. Business will see Shell, BP having to walk away from billions and think "Nah - not for us...."
- Russia's military has to go away and do a fundamental rethink. It has lost billions in kit. A $25m tank gets destroyed by a weapon costing a thousandth of that, handed over for free in their thousands. It has been shown to be unfit for purpose in so many respects.
- Crimea and Donbas are going to be looking at a neighbour where umpteen billions are being poured in to make it a better place to live than Russia will ever provide for them. Their brightest and best will drain away. Crimea and Donbas will end up as ageing shit holes. Resentment may eventually grow at what poor life choices have been imposed on them.
Agree with most of this, although I think the fungibility of hydrocarbon sales will mitigate that issue, and there will always be others willing to take the risk to invest in a potentially large market, even when they know others have lost their shirts. So it won't be a total investment famine for Russia, but it will, as you say, have a large overall negative impact on inward investments, including the most of the highest end tech companies.
The fungibility of hydrocarbon sales is the key part: ultimately, if Russia puts oil on a tanker, someone will buy it, and the discount for being Russia in origin will be in the cents.
Still: Russia faces two very serious issues in its energy sector
Firstly, Russia has limited natural gas pipeline export capacity to China (and that wont be solved quickly). And they've put themselves in a very weak negotiating position for additional piped gas.
Secondly, Russia's hydrocarbon production is incredibly dependent on kit from Halliburton/Schlumberger/Baker Hughes. Without expensive kit (and the people to operate it), Russia will struggle to maintain production levels. Decline rates on existing fields - absent investment and Western kit - are likely to be pretty horrendous. So Russia may lose oil exports, even if the world is buying its oil again.
The second is the killer. There have always been people willing to buy oil from Venezuela - the country with the largest reserves in the world. The fact that they have been a basket case as far as oil exports goes for the last decade is not down to lack of potential customers but lack of technological knowhow and kit.
That's the other loss for Russia. The US seems now to be talking seriously to Venezuela.
The tragedy for Venezuela is that they may finally get to benefit from thawing relations with the US and inward investment into their oil industry just at the moment oil goes into inexorable decline as a global energy commodity. A few years of growth then net zero.
Net Zero does not mean the end of hydrocarbons by any means. Just under half of every barrel of oil is used for non energy needs. That is not going away any time soon - or ever.
Is it really that much? I thought it was 25-35% for petrochemical products.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Of any country with a high population density, the UK has done pretty well on Covid. I wonder what Cummings says about that.
The same as I would say - that the fact we are on a par with other countries is no excuse for claiming that we could not have saved far more people had we done things differently. Also that had we done things the way some people in the current administration wanted to then things would have been far worse.
It is a fundamentally stupid answer to say that just because we did some things okay we should ignore the fact that we did many many things wrongly and that as a result a lot of people died who would not otherwise have had to.
Or my preferred take: just because we did some things well we should not ignore the fact that we have needlessly placed a crippling financial burden on the younger generation to save a relatively small number of lives.
Although we do need to compare it to the financial burden that would have accrued anyway, rather than to a 'no Covid' baseline.
As a Tory who'd prefer a new leader this poll shows no change - yesterday's from a different pollster showed a declining Labour lead. Both following a budget slated in the media, suggesting the public view may be more nuanced. Neither showed a Labour surge. What is your explanation for the Tories doing so relatively well.
I remember you saying just about a year ago, that Labour was doomed
So you cannot answer. If I did say that it just shows how much politics can change in a very short time. Maybe you might want to think about that.
Don't you live in Spain? What do you know about anything happening here?
You do know a considerable number of posters do not live in the UK and in many cases post better than some who do live here
Yes even Felix posts more useful stuff than you
Hmmm. Felix to outdo BiG as poster of the year... tricky.
Big problems in China due to shutdown. Danish giant AP Møller-Mærsk warns of big disruption to transport and rising costs.
The problem for China (and ultimately the world) is there isn't really a solution. If they don't deploy severe lockdowns, their vaccines don't work well enough and apparently like in Hong Kong portions of older people who have had full course of jabs is rather low.
Surely there is a better option: vaccinate more people with decent juice
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
So somebody was asking, what did Putin get for all that Ruski money contributed to the Tory Party?
Besides influence peddling & security tampering.
I don't know why you're asking when you're clearly not really interested in the subject and just repeatedly parrot the same talking points.
I'm VERY interested in the subject of Boris Johnson - Tory Party ties to Putin.
Would assume that a real (as opposed to 'true") Conservative would also be concerned. But maybe not.
I've never seen any indication from you that you are asking in good faith. Pointing the finger at Boris Johnson and the UK more generally has been a convenient distraction for those who genuinely have been in the pay of Russia.
Well that ain't me . . . their checks have stopped clearing for some reason . . .
I won't return the coin and accuse YOU of bad faith, let alone being in the pay of Putin.
If your interest is in good faith, what's your take on Alexander Temerko giving "Ruski money" to the Tories and lobbying for military help for Ukraine? An elaborate smokescreen to hide Putin's *real* plans?
Perhaps. Don't know. Maybe a real (as opposed to "true) inquiry might provide some answers.
Politics international or otherwise, is rarely as straightforward (let alone straight) as you seem to think
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
I don't see it as a win for Russia.
- it does not have a pliant regime in Kyiv headed by its hand-picked stooge.
- it has kept Ukraine out of NATO, but at the cost of Finland likely joining - a thousand miles of new border with NATO. Plus Sweden moving from neutral to a NATO member too. It can forget any attempt to reacquire the Baltic states.
- whilst not in NATO, Ukraine will likely eventually join the EU. If the EU has its own Article 5 equivalent to NATO, it is effectively NATO by the back door.
- so Russia now has an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by the West with the latest defensive technology and sanctions.
- Russia now has its former hydrocarbons clients going pell-mell to avoid ever having to buy them again (within the next 5 years, down to 0). It will have to sell to Asia at knock-down prices to get any foreign currency.
- Russia will find it very, very difficult to attract material inward investment for at least a decade. Business will see Shell, BP having to walk away from billions and think "Nah - not for us...."
- Russia's military has to go away and do a fundamental rethink. It has lost billions in kit. A $25m tank gets destroyed by a weapon costing a thousandth of that, handed over for free in their thousands. It has been shown to be unfit for purpose in so many respects.
- Crimea and Donbas are going to be looking at a neighbour where umpteen billions are being poured in to make it a better place to live than Russia will ever provide for them. Their brightest and best will drain away. Crimea and Donbas will end up as ageing shit holes. Resentment may eventually grow at what poor life choices have been imposed on them.
Agree with most of this, although I think the fungibility of hydrocarbon sales will mitigate that issue, and there will always be others willing to take the risk to invest in a potentially large market, even when they know others have lost their shirts. So it won't be a total investment famine for Russia, but it will, as you say, have a large overall negative impact on inward investments, including the most of the highest end tech companies.
The fungibility of hydrocarbon sales is the key part: ultimately, if Russia puts oil on a tanker, someone will buy it, and the discount for being Russia in origin will be in the cents.
Still: Russia faces two very serious issues in its energy sector
Firstly, Russia has limited natural gas pipeline export capacity to China (and that wont be solved quickly). And they've put themselves in a very weak negotiating position for additional piped gas.
Secondly, Russia's hydrocarbon production is incredibly dependent on kit from Halliburton/Schlumberger/Baker Hughes. Without expensive kit (and the people to operate it), Russia will struggle to maintain production levels. Decline rates on existing fields - absent investment and Western kit - are likely to be pretty horrendous. So Russia may lose oil exports, even if the world is buying its oil again.
The second is the killer. There have always been people willing to buy oil from Venezuela - the country with the largest reserves in the world. The fact that they have been a basket case as far as oil exports goes for the last decade is not down to lack of potential customers but lack of technological knowhow and kit.
That's the other loss for Russia. The US seems now to be talking seriously to Venezuela.
The does require the Maduro government to behave sensibly. Is there any evidence that they will do that?
By allowing dollars already was the moment they completely gave up on socialism. Even their own voters reckon they’ve caved.
Nah, they're dressing up a retreat from those two as part of a peace process but it's probably to reinforce other parts of the invasion force that have been hollowed out.
If their frontline units have taken 25-40% losses, as seems to be the case, then even if withdrawn from Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy, they will need some time to regroup before being committed to the front line again. And they will be further attrited during their retreat under fire.
There is some evidence that the Russian forces have already run through their normal reserve units, as T-60 tanks, presumably resurrected from storage, are now turning up dead on the battlefield.
Not withstanding the Russian casualties' witch have been high, as have the Ukrainians. Russia can and indeed appear to be pulling troops back over the boarder in the North east, which lets them rest and maybe even resupplied a bit, for where they can be moved to other parts of the war.
The Ukrainians even when they reach the boarder, cannot properly rest or be redeployed, as they don't know if the Russians will come back over that boarder. Thus giving an advantage to Russia.
I think you are vastly overestimating Russia's capacity to regroup, replace and resupply its mortally damaged elite units.
Vastly I think overstates it.
Yes, Russia is not going to get back full fighting strength in 5 days rest, or whatever, but it does not need to, it just needs a bit of rest, and can then be stronger than it is not, but not as strong as it was a month ago.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainians have also taken a lot of losses, and if they don't know when the Russians will be back cant rest in the same way,
thus comparative advantage to Russia.
I think you overestimate the ability of the Russian forces to quickly regroup.
For a start, a formation which has taken 20-30% losses, is not going to be in a hurry to get back into the fight. They are going to be shell shocked and desperate to avoid being in the next lot of losses.
Russia needs to pull fresh forces from other parts of the country. But in doing so, they weaken their hold there.
Now: can Russia take Mauripol and therefore hold a narrow sliver from the Donbass to the Crimea? Probably. But holding territory when the locals don't want you there, surrounded by land held by people who don't want you there...
And it's notable that the (admittedly Ukrainian) proposals circulated doesn't include any mention of the coastline.
Russia has an answer to that population Problem, they are deporting the population to camps in Russia, 60,000 from Mariupol, and over 400,000 total. thus problem solved for them, and they now have a bargaining chip, drop the sanctions or we don't give the people back, when they are released, Ukraine needs to find homes for them.
we can get an idea of the areas where the Russians are planning on keeping by where they are deporting people from, very very sad, and echoes, of soviet policy, Puyin is wicked, and sadly winning.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Of any country with a high population density, the UK has done pretty well on Covid. I wonder what Cummings says about that.
The same as I would say - that the fact we are on a par with other countries is no excuse for claiming that we could not have saved far more people had we done things differently. Also that had we done things the way some people in the current administration wanted to then things would have been far worse.
It is a fundamentally stupid answer to say that just because we did some things okay we should ignore the fact that we did many many things wrongly and that as a result a lot of people died who would not otherwise have had to.
Or my preferred take: just because we did some things well we should not ignore the fact that we have needlessly placed a crippling financial burden on the younger generation to save a relatively small number of lives.
An argument which ignores the fact that, had we not taken action, the consequences of the virus running rampant would have done far more economic damage in a completely uncontrolled way than was done by enforcing some controls.
I am not actually arguing for the fact they should have imposed more constraints. Just that some of what they did was, as far as I can see, pretty useless and they made some extremely bad mistakes which resulted in many more deaths than necessary but which could have been avoided and not necessarily with any greater cost.
As always my argument would be for better governance not more governance.
Q1 Were Soviet engineering standards, maintenance and design better at the end of 4 years of total war, the most destructive in human history, than Russian ones now?
Q2 Would a modern Russian tank start up with a bit of fettling after sitting on a plinth for 70 years?
I don't think it is a Russian issue at all but simply the technology of the time.
The IS-3 on a monument being started and driven off was a diesel with WW2 tech so infinitely simpler. Not a chip in sight. I'm not even sure if you needed functioning electrics for much more than the starter motor, at a pinch. And that could be lashed up. The other point is that the same basic V-2 diesel engine was - is - still being used in much Soviet designed kit so presumably the spares would fit. I'd think of the diesel injectors in particular, but IANAE. Or you could whip out the old engine and fit the new one in.
PLus it wouldn't have been on the plinth since 1945, necessarily, any morer than a Centurion Mk 5 outside the Tank Museum was put there in 1945 - they are both 1945-ish designs but ...
It's like railways. It's, counterintuitively, easier to get a Stephenson or Gresley locomotive running today than a 1960s diesel-electric, AIUI. Or a 1930s Gypsy Moth than a 1950s jet. Complexity, plastics etc to deteriorate, no spares now and one can't easily knock up new ones ...
I wonder in 40 years time, assuming the things haven't rusted, whether an old Beetle would be easier to get going than one of those modern thingies full of computer chips ...
This kind of analysis is fascinating, and very important. It looks likely this was authentic footage. I found the geolocation in particular really interesting.
Ukrainian forces need to know that just because the international community is on their side, that does not give them the freedom to commit war crimes.
1- Guarantors will intervene if Russia attacks after three days of consultations. They may provide arms, or impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine
2- In return, Ukraine becomes non-aligned, non-nuclear state, with no foreign bases but can join EU
3 - Ukraine, Russia to discuss the status of Crimea for the next 15 years. Ukraine won’t use violence to resolve the issue
4- Putin, Zelensky will personally discuss Donbas dispute.
Russia says security guarantees won’t cover Crimea and Donbas
How is it going to be ratified?
5- Ukraine will hold a referendum on the deal. If people approve it, then the guarantors will pass it through their individual parliaments
I’m a big fan on no more people getting hurt, but this is such an obvious non starter and load of rubbish. 😕
It doesn’t resolve Donbass.
What is definition of neutrality, no armed forces, defensive or offensive weaponry, air force, navy? Whatever is meant by neutrality, So easily worked round by west training and arming conventional force up to the hilt, training bases and stockpiles in NATO just yards from the border.
Which Guarantors provide a no fly zone over Ukraine versus Russia? Poland and Canada? How realistic is this?
IMO Guarantors would be daft to sign up to this, Though appreciate Poland heartfelt signing, everyone else including the UK couldn’t be sure what they are getting into or how to fulfil it when push comes to shove, so not daft enough to sign up as guarantor.
This approach isn’t going to end this military operation any time soon because its airy fairy can’t even see how it’s basis for something that can work. Back to drawing board whilst everyday people eating and drinking sewage. Disgusted at Putin regime and their mad ideas about azov nationalists and Ukraine history ☹
The guarantors are the major NATO members. It is basically NATO membership by the back door. Now, we can discuss whether we want a one way alliance (we defend you... you don't need to defend us), but this gurantorship is just an attempt to make NATO-protection more palatable to the Russians.
Re Donbass: yes, that is left open. Likewise, there's no mention of the coast.
The Ukrainian proposals seem to be: 2014 borders, but we get to join the EU and have effective NATO membership. And you get to claim that you kept us out of NATO and got international recognition for the Crimea.
Let’s hope the Russians now in such a desperate hole they go for that.
I’ll be completely open and honest, but happy to be corrected where wrong.
Without doubt now, over the last week, apart from Sleepy Joe, there is definite effort from all sides to dial down the rhetoric. As far as can trust the Moscow military, there are signs the mission statement is much smaller than it was. Liz Truss announcement on lifting sanctions was so vague we can argue what she meant, but it was definitely on they way to once Zelenskyy and Putin sign same bit of paper, sanctions will be at an end. I pray that soon all this war horror just becomes history. But I can’t see ceasefire and down ramp soon based on the vague unworkable nonsense currently being talked up as a deal. Despite how well you have explained and sold it to me. It’s something only workable on the detail.
If UK signed up, it would be the worst thing we’ve signed since France pushing aggressively to start First World War by signing us into the Entente Cordial
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
So somebody was asking, what did Putin get for all that Ruski money contributed to the Tory Party?
Besides influence peddling & security tampering.
I don't know why you're asking when you're clearly not really interested in the subject and just repeatedly parrot the same talking points.
I'm VERY interested in the subject of Boris Johnson - Tory Party ties to Putin.
Would assume that a real (as opposed to 'true") Conservative would also be concerned. But maybe not.
I've never seen any indication from you that you are asking in good faith. Pointing the finger at Boris Johnson and the UK more generally has been a convenient distraction for those who genuinely have been in the pay of Russia.
Well that ain't me . . . their checks have stopped clearing for some reason . . .
I won't return the coin and accuse YOU of bad faith, let alone being in the pay of Putin.
If your interest is in good faith, what's your take on Alexander Temerko giving "Ruski money" to the Tories and lobbying for military help for Ukraine? An elaborate smokescreen to hide Putin's *real* plans?
Perhaps. Don't know. Maybe a real (as opposed to "true) inquiry might provide some answers.
Politics international or otherwise, is rarely as straightforward (let alone straight) as you seem to think
For example, Secret Treaty of Dover.
You'd have to be either willfully blind or deliberately trying to muddy the waters to look at the moment of clarity brought about by Russia's invasion and think that it's Boris Johnson and the UK that have been in some kind of secret alliance with Russia.
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
I don't see it as a win for Russia.
- it does not have a pliant regime in Kyiv headed by its hand-picked stooge.
- it has kept Ukraine out of NATO, but at the cost of Finland likely joining - a thousand miles of new border with NATO. Plus Sweden moving from neutral to a NATO member too. It can forget any attempt to reacquire the Baltic states.
- whilst not in NATO, Ukraine will likely eventually join the EU. If the EU has its own Article 5 equivalent to NATO, it is effectively NATO by the back door.
- so Russia now has an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by the West with the latest defensive technology and sanctions.
- Russia now has its former hydrocarbons clients going pell-mell to avoid ever having to buy them again (within the next 5 years, down to 0). It will have to sell to Asia at knock-down prices to get any foreign currency.
- Russia will find it very, very difficult to attract material inward investment for at least a decade. Business will see Shell, BP having to walk away from billions and think "Nah - not for us...."
- Russia's military has to go away and do a fundamental rethink. It has lost billions in kit. A $25m tank gets destroyed by a weapon costing a thousandth of that, handed over for free in their thousands. It has been shown to be unfit for purpose in so many respects.
- Crimea and Donbas are going to be looking at a neighbour where umpteen billions are being poured in to make it a better place to live than Russia will ever provide for them. Their brightest and best will drain away. Crimea and Donbas will end up as ageing shit holes. Resentment may eventually grow at what poor life choices have been imposed on them.
Agree with most of this, although I think the fungibility of hydrocarbon sales will mitigate that issue, and there will always be others willing to take the risk to invest in a potentially large market, even when they know others have lost their shirts. So it won't be a total investment famine for Russia, but it will, as you say, have a large overall negative impact on inward investments, including the most of the highest end tech companies.
The fungibility of hydrocarbon sales is the key part: ultimately, if Russia puts oil on a tanker, someone will buy it, and the discount for being Russia in origin will be in the cents.
Still: Russia faces two very serious issues in its energy sector
Firstly, Russia has limited natural gas pipeline export capacity to China (and that wont be solved quickly). And they've put themselves in a very weak negotiating position for additional piped gas.
Secondly, Russia's hydrocarbon production is incredibly dependent on kit from Halliburton/Schlumberger/Baker Hughes. Without expensive kit (and the people to operate it), Russia will struggle to maintain production levels. Decline rates on existing fields - absent investment and Western kit - are likely to be pretty horrendous. So Russia may lose oil exports, even if the world is buying its oil again.
The second is the killer. There have always been people willing to buy oil from Venezuela - the country with the largest reserves in the world. The fact that they have been a basket case as far as oil exports goes for the last decade is not down to lack of potential customers but lack of technological knowhow and kit.
That's the other loss for Russia. The US seems now to be talking seriously to Venezuela.
The does require the Maduro government to behave sensibly. Is there any evidence that they will do that?
By allowing dollars already was the moment they completely gave up on socialism. Even their own voters reckon they’ve caved.
Now, my knowledge here is slightly out of date, but the state oil company (PDVSA) has not been allowed to use foreign contractors, which severely limited their ability to extract more difficult or heavier oil.
Nah, they're dressing up a retreat from those two as part of a peace process but it's probably to reinforce other parts of the invasion force that have been hollowed out.
If their frontline units have taken 25-40% losses, as seems to be the case, then even if withdrawn from Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy, they will need some time to regroup before being committed to the front line again. And they will be further attrited during their retreat under fire.
There is some evidence that the Russian forces have already run through their normal reserve units, as T-60 tanks, presumably resurrected from storage, are now turning up dead on the battlefield.
Not withstanding the Russian casualties' witch have been high, as have the Ukrainians. Russia can and indeed appear to be pulling troops back over the boarder in the North east, which lets them rest and maybe even resupplied a bit, for where they can be moved to other parts of the war.
The Ukrainians even when they reach the boarder, cannot properly rest or be redeployed, as they don't know if the Russians will come back over that boarder. Thus giving an advantage to Russia.
I think you are vastly overestimating Russia's capacity to regroup, replace and resupply its mortally damaged elite units.
Vastly I think overstates it.
Yes, Russia is not going to get back full fighting strength in 5 days rest, or whatever, but it does not need to, it just needs a bit of rest, and can then be stronger than it is not, but not as strong as it was a month ago.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainians have also taken a lot of losses, and if they don't know when the Russians will be back cant rest in the same way,
thus comparative advantage to Russia.
I think you overestimate the ability of the Russian forces to quickly regroup.
For a start, a formation which has taken 20-30% losses, is not going to be in a hurry to get back into the fight. They are going to be shell shocked and desperate to avoid being in the next lot of losses.
Russia needs to pull fresh forces from other parts of the country. But in doing so, they weaken their hold there.
Now: can Russia take Mauripol and therefore hold a narrow sliver from the Donbass to the Crimea? Probably. But holding territory when the locals don't want you there, surrounded by land held by people who don't want you there...
And it's notable that the (admittedly Ukrainian) proposals circulated doesn't include any mention of the coastline.
Russia has an answer to that population Problem, they are deporting the population to camps in Russia, 60,000 from Mariupol, and over 400,000 total. thus problem solved for them, and they now have a bargaining chip, drop the sanctions or we don't give the people back, when they are released, Ukraine needs to find homes for them.
we can get an idea of the areas where the Russians are planning on keeping by where they are deporting people from, very very sad, and echoes, of soviet policy, Puyin is wicked, and sadly winning.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
I still think part of the fallout of this war will be Belarus, departing from the Russian sphere of influence in the next few years - thereby making any further military adventure into Ukraine far more difficult for Russia.
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
So somebody was asking, what did Putin get for all that Ruski money contributed to the Tory Party?
Besides influence peddling & security tampering.
I don't know why you're asking when you're clearly not really interested in the subject and just repeatedly parrot the same talking points.
I'm VERY interested in the subject of Boris Johnson - Tory Party ties to Putin.
Would assume that a real (as opposed to 'true") Conservative would also be concerned. But maybe not.
I've never seen any indication from you that you are asking in good faith. Pointing the finger at Boris Johnson and the UK more generally has been a convenient distraction for those who genuinely have been in the pay of Russia.
I don't know whether that was intended, but that looks a pretty nasty and libellous insinuation of another PB poster. You perhaps ought to rephrase or withdraw that perhaps?
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Dominic Cummings has stopped using Twitter so if Twitter is the real world, Cummings will seem to be quiet. As you say, he is emailing, substacking and Q&A-ing. His latest idea is the MAD doctrine of nuclear deterrence is badly flawed and we're all going to die.
Oh no, just when I'd gone the other way! I started off thinking it fatally flawed, then got to where I am now - that it not only works but it's the only thing which can work as long as WMD nukes exist.
I worked hard to get here too. It was key to peace of mind. So I will NOT be reading Cummings on the matter.
I think you are a better strategic thinker than Cummings based on your ending positions on this matter.
So long as there are any NW, MAD makes sense. The other option is total subservience to those who have NW and are willing to use them (or threaten to use them in a credible manner). It does not mean that the MAD outcome is 100% safe. It just means it is the best stable(-ish) equilibrium.
No, Cummings point is that MAD makes sense if you live in a world where both sides are ruled by sane people and where accidents and misunderstandings cannot happen. Now for 40 odd years we were lucky that mostly the first applied and secondly those unforeseen events were prevented from escalating to war by the single individuals, usually very low down the command chain, making a key choice at the right moment. But in hindsight we now know that we were unbelievably, undeservedly lucky that there were people with sufficient intelligence and common sense to make those crucial decisions at the right moment.
At some point that luck will inevitably run out.
Now it is debatable whether that is an argument against the MAD theory as the alternative may well be worse. But the current thinking is based on the idea that MAD works and that the prevention of nuclear exchanges to date is a function of it working properly. In fact the lack of such exchanges in the last 70 years is, to a very large extent, a matter of pure luck.
That's kind of where I was before. If MAD per se is impeccable it follows that the safest possible world - from nuclear holocaust - is one where every country has nuclear WMDs and can thus partake of some MAD. We instinctively know this is a nonsense therefore the first assertion is also a nonsense. MAD does not 'work' in that sense.
But your last para is key. Given where we are, and the impossibility of simultaneous mass mothballing, MAD is the best we've got. And it IS working right now in this conflagration. Plus it almost certainly will carry on doing so. This is what I concluded when I thought about it properly and it was a welcome conclusion to reach.
Clearly, increasing the number of participants makes any 'game' more complicated to model at the same time as increasing the risk of at least one madman at the helm.
Negotiating down nuclear stockpiles is the only sane approach, but eliminating them is problematic/impossible. MAD doesn't have to apply to the entire planet - just the elites in every country possessing nuclear weapons.
Yes, negotiate them down, some countries going from lots to less, some from nuclear to non, and over time you get a safer world.
But I'm not very optimistic. Eg Ukraine gave them up and people are now saying this only proves the idiocy of it. A policy of no Trident here, for all its rationality, is electoral death. Japan is talking about going nuclear. Kim is a role model for how an otherwise relatively insignificant country and leader gets global bandwidth by developing nukes. Israel's possession of them is both justified by Saudi's enormous military spending and Iran's ambitions and at the same time feeds those 2 things. Then India/Pakistan, China, and a Russia with Putin.
You need a powerful and positive imagination to visualize the next 75 years being safer than the last 75. But, short term, let's look on the bright side, I don't think there's much nuclear escalation risk with this war that's going on now, unprovoked crime of aggression though it undeniably is.
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
So somebody was asking, what did Putin get for all that Ruski money contributed to the Tory Party?
Besides influence peddling & security tampering.
I don't know why you're asking when you're clearly not really interested in the subject and just repeatedly parrot the same talking points.
I'm VERY interested in the subject of Boris Johnson - Tory Party ties to Putin.
Would assume that a real (as opposed to 'true") Conservative would also be concerned. But maybe not.
I've never seen any indication from you that you are asking in good faith. Pointing the finger at Boris Johnson and the UK more generally has been a convenient distraction for those who genuinely have been in the pay of Russia.
Well that ain't me . . . their checks have stopped clearing for some reason . . .
I won't return the coin and accuse YOU of bad faith, let alone being in the pay of Putin.
If your interest is in good faith, what's your take on Alexander Temerko giving "Ruski money" to the Tories and lobbying for military help for Ukraine? An elaborate smokescreen to hide Putin's *real* plans?
Perhaps. Don't know. Maybe a real (as opposed to "true) inquiry might provide some answers.
Politics international or otherwise, is rarely as straightforward (let alone straight) as you seem to think
For example, Secret Treaty of Dover.
You'd have to be either willfully blind or deliberately trying to muddy the waters to look at the moment of clarity brought about by Russia's invasion and think that it's Boris Johnson and the UK that have been in some kind of secret alliance with Russia.
True enough, which is why I don't think that, and have never said that.
Interesting, though, that you jump (or rather leap) to such conclusion. From excess of sophistry or credulity.
Put your words in your mouth, not mine. Just makes you look lame.
Regarding Covid, the latest wavelet or whatever one should call it now appears to subsiding again. I've been rather heartened by the public reaction to this latest hump. Outside of a few shrill cameo appearances from what is left of the zerocovidians, there has been a near absence of the usual hysteria and – by and large – people are ignoring it and going about their lives. Masking is virtually gone. Outside east Asia and Godalming, normal life is surging back.
My only question is whether we can now rid ourselves of the daily updates? They seem increasingly pointless reminders of a grim past, a one-way ticket to permanent anxiety that is serving little real purpose. The monthly ONS report should suffice.
24 full-sample Westminster voting intention polls were conducted* in Scotland during 2021.
To date in 2022: zero.
Something’s up.
(*published)
Hmm. Niot having [edit] 6 in 3 months feels like it's getting more than a stat fluctuation, especially as you'd expect spacing to be non-random to begin with (ie more evenly spaced than the null hypothesis).
In 2021, what proportion of the - as you say - published polls were funded by Unionist parties or media, do you know?
87.5% of the 2021 polls were published by Unionist media. That they appear to have suddenly desisted (or at least desisted from publishing the findings) speaks volumes.
Nah, they're dressing up a retreat from those two as part of a peace process but it's probably to reinforce other parts of the invasion force that have been hollowed out.
If their frontline units have taken 25-40% losses, as seems to be the case, then even if withdrawn from Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy, they will need some time to regroup before being committed to the front line again. And they will be further attrited during their retreat under fire.
There is some evidence that the Russian forces have already run through their normal reserve units, as T-60 tanks, presumably resurrected from storage, are now turning up dead on the battlefield.
Not withstanding the Russian casualties' witch have been high, as have the Ukrainians. Russia can and indeed appear to be pulling troops back over the boarder in the North east, which lets them rest and maybe even resupplied a bit, for where they can be moved to other parts of the war.
The Ukrainians even when they reach the boarder, cannot properly rest or be redeployed, as they don't know if the Russians will come back over that boarder. Thus giving an advantage to Russia.
I think you are vastly overestimating Russia's capacity to regroup, replace and resupply its mortally damaged elite units.
Vastly I think overstates it.
Yes, Russia is not going to get back full fighting strength in 5 days rest, or whatever, but it does not need to, it just needs a bit of rest, and can then be stronger than it is not, but not as strong as it was a month ago.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainians have also taken a lot of losses, and if they don't know when the Russians will be back cant rest in the same way,
thus comparative advantage to Russia.
I think you overestimate the ability of the Russian forces to quickly regroup.
For a start, a formation which has taken 20-30% losses, is not going to be in a hurry to get back into the fight. They are going to be shell shocked and desperate to avoid being in the next lot of losses.
Russia needs to pull fresh forces from other parts of the country. But in doing so, they weaken their hold there.
Now: can Russia take Mauripol and therefore hold a narrow sliver from the Donbass to the Crimea? Probably. But holding territory when the locals don't want you there, surrounded by land held by people who don't want you there...
And it's notable that the (admittedly Ukrainian) proposals circulated doesn't include any mention of the coastline.
Russia has an answer to that population Problem, they are deporting the population to camps in Russia, 60,000 from Mariupol, and over 400,000 total. thus problem solved for them, and they now have a bargaining chip, drop the sanctions or we don't give the people back, when they are released, Ukraine needs to find homes for them.
we can get an idea of the areas where the Russians are planning on keeping by where they are deporting people from, very very sad, and echoes, of soviet policy, Puyin is wicked, and sadly winning.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Agree entirely with this analysis. The 'Putin is losing' thing seems to me to be classic wishful thinking. I think we'll end up with Crimea and the two rebel republics becoming de facto / de jure part of Russia. As massive territorial gain for Putin –– despite the drastic loss of thousands of men (which, as you say, he'll cover up as much as possible).
Nah, they're dressing up a retreat from those two as part of a peace process but it's probably to reinforce other parts of the invasion force that have been hollowed out.
If their frontline units have taken 25-40% losses, as seems to be the case, then even if withdrawn from Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy, they will need some time to regroup before being committed to the front line again. And they will be further attrited during their retreat under fire.
There is some evidence that the Russian forces have already run through their normal reserve units, as T-60 tanks, presumably resurrected from storage, are now turning up dead on the battlefield.
Not withstanding the Russian casualties' witch have been high, as have the Ukrainians. Russia can and indeed appear to be pulling troops back over the boarder in the North east, which lets them rest and maybe even resupplied a bit, for where they can be moved to other parts of the war.
The Ukrainians even when they reach the boarder, cannot properly rest or be redeployed, as they don't know if the Russians will come back over that boarder. Thus giving an advantage to Russia.
I think you are vastly overestimating Russia's capacity to regroup, replace and resupply its mortally damaged elite units.
Vastly I think overstates it.
Yes, Russia is not going to get back full fighting strength in 5 days rest, or whatever, but it does not need to, it just needs a bit of rest, and can then be stronger than it is not, but not as strong as it was a month ago.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainians have also taken a lot of losses, and if they don't know when the Russians will be back cant rest in the same way,
thus comparative advantage to Russia.
I think you overestimate the ability of the Russian forces to quickly regroup.
For a start, a formation which has taken 20-30% losses, is not going to be in a hurry to get back into the fight. They are going to be shell shocked and desperate to avoid being in the next lot of losses.
Russia needs to pull fresh forces from other parts of the country. But in doing so, they weaken their hold there.
Now: can Russia take Mauripol and therefore hold a narrow sliver from the Donbass to the Crimea? Probably. But holding territory when the locals don't want you there, surrounded by land held by people who don't want you there...
And it's notable that the (admittedly Ukrainian) proposals circulated doesn't include any mention of the coastline.
Russia has an answer to that population Problem, they are deporting the population to camps in Russia, 60,000 from Mariupol, and over 400,000 total. thus problem solved for them, and they now have a bargaining chip, drop the sanctions or we don't give the people back, when they are released, Ukraine needs to find homes for them.
we can get an idea of the areas where the Russians are planning on keeping by where they are deporting people from, very very sad, and echoes, of soviet policy, Puyin is wicked, and sadly winning.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Early on in this conflict, I assumed that Putin was incredibly smart, and had wargamed every angle. Essentially, this man made tens (or hundreds) of billions, consolidated his hold on Russia, crushed rebellious provinces, etc.
Basically, like many others, I assumed that Putin was playing 5D chess.
We've all been slow to respond to new information. Putin wasn't playing 5D chess: he was woefully ignorant of the capabilities of his own armed forces, and of the likely resistance of the Ukrainians. He massively miscalculated and has taken enormous damage.
I think you are still of the view that Russia is a military superpower that just needs to reorient their forces to deal a knock out blow. And I think that is wrong. Or, at least, it ignores the fact that what remains of the Russian forces outside Ukraine is either (a) conscripts, (b) holding down other rebellious provinces or (c) Putin's own personal security detail in Moscow.
Now, can they grind the Ukrainians into a bloody stalemate in the East? Probably. But that isn't victory for Russia. That's a continued crushing cost, as they tip more men and weapons into a part of a foreign country that doesn't want them.
And every day Russia remains in this fight, the West weans itself a little more off of Russia's energy.
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
So somebody was asking, what did Putin get for all that Ruski money contributed to the Tory Party?
Besides influence peddling & security tampering.
I don't know why you're asking when you're clearly not really interested in the subject and just repeatedly parrot the same talking points.
I'm VERY interested in the subject of Boris Johnson - Tory Party ties to Putin.
Would assume that a real (as opposed to 'true") Conservative would also be concerned. But maybe not.
I've never seen any indication from you that you are asking in good faith. Pointing the finger at Boris Johnson and the UK more generally has been a convenient distraction for those who genuinely have been in the pay of Russia.
Well that ain't me . . . their checks have stopped clearing for some reason . . .
I won't return the coin and accuse YOU of bad faith, let alone being in the pay of Putin.
If your interest is in good faith, what's your take on Alexander Temerko giving "Ruski money" to the Tories and lobbying for military help for Ukraine? An elaborate smokescreen to hide Putin's *real* plans?
Perhaps. Don't know. Maybe a real (as opposed to "true) inquiry might provide some answers.
Politics international or otherwise, is rarely as straightforward (let alone straight) as you seem to think
For example, Secret Treaty of Dover.
You'd have to be either willfully blind or deliberately trying to muddy the waters to look at the moment of clarity brought about by Russia's invasion and think that it's Boris Johnson and the UK that have been in some kind of secret alliance with Russia.
Russia wouldn't have Johnson as an asset, he is too much of a liability. Useful Idiot In Chief is about as far as it gets.
Net impact of the Ukraine war on global carbon emissions is an interesting question.
- global economic slowdown and less production - increased oil price leading to reduced vehicle mileage and energy use - slowdown in Russian exploration and extraction due to sanctions - trigger for Europe to speed up weaning itself off fossil fuels
+ temporary increased coal burning + increased oil price spurs further exploration and production of shale oil and gas + Iran and Venezuela ramp up production + Russia ceases any meaningful efforts (if they ever existed) to reduce its own emissions + domestic political agenda shifts from net zero to subsidising car drivers
Long term this has surely got to speed up Western economies' transition to net zero but I suspect short term it's probably an unhelpful distraction.
Nah, they're dressing up a retreat from those two as part of a peace process but it's probably to reinforce other parts of the invasion force that have been hollowed out.
If their frontline units have taken 25-40% losses, as seems to be the case, then even if withdrawn from Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy, they will need some time to regroup before being committed to the front line again. And they will be further attrited during their retreat under fire.
There is some evidence that the Russian forces have already run through their normal reserve units, as T-60 tanks, presumably resurrected from storage, are now turning up dead on the battlefield.
Not withstanding the Russian casualties' witch have been high, as have the Ukrainians. Russia can and indeed appear to be pulling troops back over the boarder in the North east, which lets them rest and maybe even resupplied a bit, for where they can be moved to other parts of the war.
The Ukrainians even when they reach the boarder, cannot properly rest or be redeployed, as they don't know if the Russians will come back over that boarder. Thus giving an advantage to Russia.
I think you are vastly overestimating Russia's capacity to regroup, replace and resupply its mortally damaged elite units.
Vastly I think overstates it.
Yes, Russia is not going to get back full fighting strength in 5 days rest, or whatever, but it does not need to, it just needs a bit of rest, and can then be stronger than it is not, but not as strong as it was a month ago.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainians have also taken a lot of losses, and if they don't know when the Russians will be back cant rest in the same way,
thus comparative advantage to Russia.
I think you overestimate the ability of the Russian forces to quickly regroup.
For a start, a formation which has taken 20-30% losses, is not going to be in a hurry to get back into the fight. They are going to be shell shocked and desperate to avoid being in the next lot of losses.
Russia needs to pull fresh forces from other parts of the country. But in doing so, they weaken their hold there.
Now: can Russia take Mauripol and therefore hold a narrow sliver from the Donbass to the Crimea? Probably. But holding territory when the locals don't want you there, surrounded by land held by people who don't want you there...
And it's notable that the (admittedly Ukrainian) proposals circulated doesn't include any mention of the coastline.
Russia has an answer to that population Problem, they are deporting the population to camps in Russia, 60,000 from Mariupol, and over 400,000 total. thus problem solved for them, and they now have a bargaining chip, drop the sanctions or we don't give the people back, when they are released, Ukraine needs to find homes for them.
we can get an idea of the areas where the Russians are planning on keeping by where they are deporting people from, very very sad, and echoes, of soviet policy, Puyin is wicked, and sadly winning.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Agree entirely with this analysis. The 'Putin is losing' thing seems to me to be classic wishful thinking. I think we'll end up with Crimea and the two rebel republics becoming de facto / de jure part of Russia. As massive territorial gain for Putin –– despite the drastic loss of thousands of men (which, as you say, he'll cover up as much as possible).
Thanks, I was beginning to feel like a 'minoraty of one' in my opinion.
24 full-sample Westminster voting intention polls were conducted* in Scotland during 2021.
To date in 2022: zero.
Something’s up.
(*published)
Hmm. Niot having [edit] 6 in 3 months feels like it's getting more than a stat fluctuation, especially as you'd expect spacing to be non-random to begin with (ie more evenly spaced than the null hypothesis).
In 2021, what proportion of the - as you say - published polls were funded by Unionist parties or media, do you know?
87.5% of the 2021 polls were published by Unionist media. That they appear to have suddenly desisted (or at least desisted from publishing the findings) speaks volumes.
Mm, that's about 7/8 - so that leaves just 3 polls with non-Unionist funders. One every four months on average. And we're only three momths into 2022. Barring posh Bayesian analysis, a very rough conclusion is that we can't legitimately rule out the null hypothesis that the non-Unionist funders are behaving normally, all other things equal. Which is a massive contrast.
Nah, they're dressing up a retreat from those two as part of a peace process but it's probably to reinforce other parts of the invasion force that have been hollowed out.
If their frontline units have taken 25-40% losses, as seems to be the case, then even if withdrawn from Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy, they will need some time to regroup before being committed to the front line again. And they will be further attrited during their retreat under fire.
There is some evidence that the Russian forces have already run through their normal reserve units, as T-60 tanks, presumably resurrected from storage, are now turning up dead on the battlefield.
Not withstanding the Russian casualties' witch have been high, as have the Ukrainians. Russia can and indeed appear to be pulling troops back over the boarder in the North east, which lets them rest and maybe even resupplied a bit, for where they can be moved to other parts of the war.
The Ukrainians even when they reach the boarder, cannot properly rest or be redeployed, as they don't know if the Russians will come back over that boarder. Thus giving an advantage to Russia.
I think you are vastly overestimating Russia's capacity to regroup, replace and resupply its mortally damaged elite units.
Vastly I think overstates it.
Yes, Russia is not going to get back full fighting strength in 5 days rest, or whatever, but it does not need to, it just needs a bit of rest, and can then be stronger than it is not, but not as strong as it was a month ago.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainians have also taken a lot of losses, and if they don't know when the Russians will be back cant rest in the same way,
thus comparative advantage to Russia.
I think you overestimate the ability of the Russian forces to quickly regroup.
For a start, a formation which has taken 20-30% losses, is not going to be in a hurry to get back into the fight. They are going to be shell shocked and desperate to avoid being in the next lot of losses.
Russia needs to pull fresh forces from other parts of the country. But in doing so, they weaken their hold there.
Now: can Russia take Mauripol and therefore hold a narrow sliver from the Donbass to the Crimea? Probably. But holding territory when the locals don't want you there, surrounded by land held by people who don't want you there...
And it's notable that the (admittedly Ukrainian) proposals circulated doesn't include any mention of the coastline.
Russia has an answer to that population Problem, they are deporting the population to camps in Russia, 60,000 from Mariupol, and over 400,000 total. thus problem solved for them, and they now have a bargaining chip, drop the sanctions or we don't give the people back, when they are released, Ukraine needs to find homes for them.
we can get an idea of the areas where the Russians are planning on keeping by where they are deporting people from, very very sad, and echoes, of soviet policy, Puyin is wicked, and sadly winning.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Agree entirely with this analysis. The 'Putin is losing' thing seems to me to be classic wishful thinking. I think we'll end up with Crimea and the two rebel republics becoming de facto / de jure part of Russia. As massive territorial gain for Putin –– despite the drastic loss of thousands of men (which, as you say, he'll cover up as much as possible).
To say Putin is NOT winning his war at moment, is not quite same as saying he's losing, let alone lost.
On other hand, settlement that gives him what he already had ante bellum (de facto if not de jure which is not that big a deal, just ask the PM and his cabinet) is NOT a "massive territorial gain".
And strengthening of Ukrainian national identity and of NATO, and host of other developments, is a massive self-defeat for Putin.
Ukraine is proposing to resolve the status of Crimea by “diplomatic and political means” over 15 years.
Which presumably means a withdrawal to boundaries of the 2014 invasion by Russia as a first ceasefire live?
What about the 2 'separatist' areas with Russia's fake referendum in 2014/5, following their vote in support of Ukrainian independence in 1994 (ish) ?
Russia probably has little interest in the areas north of the capital and to the north east of the country, beyond a bargaining position, however there is IMHO no chance that they will withdrew in the south, where both logic and there actions show they what a) the secure water supply to the Crimea, and b) the land bridge/full cost of the sea of Azov. both of which have more strategic impotence. as too the rest of the territory of the 2 Donbass republics, even though that was the 'official' reason for the war, I think there more mixed in opinions, if they got it then it would be even easier to present this as a win, but they are pretty poor areas with a population that is not particularly pre-Putin.
I am anticipating, the Russians capturing, the rest of Mariupol, and then just wafting this out, with the occasional missile or artillery barrage, in to Ukraine. possibly push forward in to more of the Donbass, but mostly wait. and repel Ukrainian attacks, at least in areas that Russia hopes to keep at the end.
We like to tell ourselves that we are crushing the Russian economy, the Russian economy is hearing, but not nearly as much as the Ukrainian. we like to tell ourselves that Russia has taken huge casualty's, and it has, but so has Ukraine, and so on.
Sadly, this looks like a win for Russia. and it did not need to be, Germany instead of planning to spend 100 billion euros extra on defence, could have armed the Ukrainians properly for 5 billion.
I don't see it as a win for Russia.
- it does not have a pliant regime in Kyiv headed by its hand-picked stooge.
- it has kept Ukraine out of NATO, but at the cost of Finland likely joining - a thousand miles of new border with NATO. Plus Sweden moving from neutral to a NATO member too. It can forget any attempt to reacquire the Baltic states.
- whilst not in NATO, Ukraine will likely eventually join the EU. If the EU has its own Article 5 equivalent to NATO, it is effectively NATO by the back door.
- so Russia now has an implacable enemy in Ukraine, supported by the West with the latest defensive technology and sanctions.
- Russia now has its former hydrocarbons clients going pell-mell to avoid ever having to buy them again (within the next 5 years, down to 0). It will have to sell to Asia at knock-down prices to get any foreign currency.
- Russia will find it very, very difficult to attract material inward investment for at least a decade. Business will see Shell, BP having to walk away from billions and think "Nah - not for us...."
- Russia's military has to go away and do a fundamental rethink. It has lost billions in kit. A $25m tank gets destroyed by a weapon costing a thousandth of that, handed over for free in their thousands. It has been shown to be unfit for purpose in so many respects.
- Crimea and Donbas are going to be looking at a neighbour where umpteen billions are being poured in to make it a better place to live than Russia will ever provide for them. Their brightest and best will drain away. Crimea and Donbas will end up as ageing shit holes. Resentment may eventually grow at what poor life choices have been imposed on them.
Agree with most of this, although I think the fungibility of hydrocarbon sales will mitigate that issue, and there will always be others willing to take the risk to invest in a potentially large market, even when they know others have lost their shirts. So it won't be a total investment famine for Russia, but it will, as you say, have a large overall negative impact on inward investments, including the most of the highest end tech companies.
The fungibility of hydrocarbon sales is the key part: ultimately, if Russia puts oil on a tanker, someone will buy it, and the discount for being Russia in origin will be in the cents.
Still: Russia faces two very serious issues in its energy sector
Firstly, Russia has limited natural gas pipeline export capacity to China (and that wont be solved quickly). And they've put themselves in a very weak negotiating position for additional piped gas.
Secondly, Russia's hydrocarbon production is incredibly dependent on kit from Halliburton/Schlumberger/Baker Hughes. Without expensive kit (and the people to operate it), Russia will struggle to maintain production levels. Decline rates on existing fields - absent investment and Western kit - are likely to be pretty horrendous. So Russia may lose oil exports, even if the world is buying its oil again.
The second is the killer. There have always been people willing to buy oil from Venezuela - the country with the largest reserves in the world. The fact that they have been a basket case as far as oil exports goes for the last decade is not down to lack of potential customers but lack of technological knowhow and kit.
That's the other loss for Russia. The US seems now to be talking seriously to Venezuela.
The does require the Maduro government to behave sensibly. Is there any evidence that they will do that?
By allowing dollars already was the moment they completely gave up on socialism. Even their own voters reckon they’ve caved.
Now, my knowledge here is slightly out of date, but the state oil company (PDVSA) has not been allowed to use foreign contractors, which severely limited their ability to extract more difficult or heavier oil.
Has that changed?
I don’t know, is the honest answer.
I only really know about shopping, and they are allowed to use dollars for shopping
Having explained the shopping situation, I’ll leave oil questions to the sites oil experts 🙂
Nah, they're dressing up a retreat from those two as part of a peace process but it's probably to reinforce other parts of the invasion force that have been hollowed out.
If their frontline units have taken 25-40% losses, as seems to be the case, then even if withdrawn from Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy, they will need some time to regroup before being committed to the front line again. And they will be further attrited during their retreat under fire.
There is some evidence that the Russian forces have already run through their normal reserve units, as T-60 tanks, presumably resurrected from storage, are now turning up dead on the battlefield.
Not withstanding the Russian casualties' witch have been high, as have the Ukrainians. Russia can and indeed appear to be pulling troops back over the boarder in the North east, which lets them rest and maybe even resupplied a bit, for where they can be moved to other parts of the war.
The Ukrainians even when they reach the boarder, cannot properly rest or be redeployed, as they don't know if the Russians will come back over that boarder. Thus giving an advantage to Russia.
I think you are vastly overestimating Russia's capacity to regroup, replace and resupply its mortally damaged elite units.
Vastly I think overstates it.
Yes, Russia is not going to get back full fighting strength in 5 days rest, or whatever, but it does not need to, it just needs a bit of rest, and can then be stronger than it is not, but not as strong as it was a month ago.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainians have also taken a lot of losses, and if they don't know when the Russians will be back cant rest in the same way,
thus comparative advantage to Russia.
I think you overestimate the ability of the Russian forces to quickly regroup.
For a start, a formation which has taken 20-30% losses, is not going to be in a hurry to get back into the fight. They are going to be shell shocked and desperate to avoid being in the next lot of losses.
Russia needs to pull fresh forces from other parts of the country. But in doing so, they weaken their hold there.
Now: can Russia take Mauripol and therefore hold a narrow sliver from the Donbass to the Crimea? Probably. But holding territory when the locals don't want you there, surrounded by land held by people who don't want you there...
And it's notable that the (admittedly Ukrainian) proposals circulated doesn't include any mention of the coastline.
Russia has an answer to that population Problem, they are deporting the population to camps in Russia, 60,000 from Mariupol, and over 400,000 total. thus problem solved for them, and they now have a bargaining chip, drop the sanctions or we don't give the people back, when they are released, Ukraine needs to find homes for them.
we can get an idea of the areas where the Russians are planning on keeping by where they are deporting people from, very very sad, and echoes, of soviet policy, Puyin is wicked, and sadly winning.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Early on in this conflict, I assumed that Putin was incredibly smart, and had wargamed every angle. Essentially, this man made tens (or hundreds) of billions, consolidated his hold on Russia, crushed rebellious provinces, etc.
Basically, like many others, I assumed that Putin was playing 5D chess.
We've all been slow to respond to new information. Putin wasn't playing 5D chess: he was woefully ignorant of the capabilities of his own armed forces, and of the likely resistance of the Ukrainians. He massively miscalculated and has taken enormous damage.
I think you are still of the view that Russia is a military superpower that just needs to reorient their forces to deal a knock out blow. And I think that is wrong. Or, at least, it ignores the fact that what remains of the Russian forces outside Ukraine is either (a) conscripts, (b) holding down other rebellious provinces or (c) Putin's own personal security detail in Moscow.
Now, can they grind the Ukrainians into a bloody stalemate in the East? Probably. But that isn't victory for Russia. That's a continued crushing cost, as they tip more men and weapons into a part of a foreign country that doesn't want them.
And every day Russia remains in this fight, the West weans itself a little more off of Russia's energy.
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
So somebody was asking, what did Putin get for all that Ruski money contributed to the Tory Party?
Besides influence peddling & security tampering.
I don't know why you're asking when you're clearly not really interested in the subject and just repeatedly parrot the same talking points.
I'm VERY interested in the subject of Boris Johnson - Tory Party ties to Putin.
Would assume that a real (as opposed to 'true") Conservative would also be concerned. But maybe not.
I've never seen any indication from you that you are asking in good faith. Pointing the finger at Boris Johnson and the UK more generally has been a convenient distraction for those who genuinely have been in the pay of Russia.
Well that ain't me . . . their checks have stopped clearing for some reason . . .
I won't return the coin and accuse YOU of bad faith, let alone being in the pay of Putin.
If your interest is in good faith, what's your take on Alexander Temerko giving "Ruski money" to the Tories and lobbying for military help for Ukraine? An elaborate smokescreen to hide Putin's *real* plans?
Perhaps. Don't know. Maybe a real (as opposed to "true) inquiry might provide some answers.
Politics international or otherwise, is rarely as straightforward (let alone straight) as you seem to think
For example, Secret Treaty of Dover.
You'd have to be either willfully blind or deliberately trying to muddy the waters to look at the moment of clarity brought about by Russia's invasion and think that it's Boris Johnson and the UK that have been in some kind of secret alliance with Russia.
Russia wouldn't have Johnson as an asset, he is too much of a liability. Useful Idiot In Chief is about as far as it gets.
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
So somebody was asking, what did Putin get for all that Ruski money contributed to the Tory Party?
Besides influence peddling & security tampering.
I don't know why you're asking when you're clearly not really interested in the subject and just repeatedly parrot the same talking points.
I'm VERY interested in the subject of Boris Johnson - Tory Party ties to Putin.
Would assume that a real (as opposed to 'true") Conservative would also be concerned. But maybe not.
I've never seen any indication from you that you are asking in good faith. Pointing the finger at Boris Johnson and the UK more generally has been a convenient distraction for those who genuinely have been in the pay of Russia.
This is getting ridiculous. When someone accused me of being a Russian or Chinese agent the other day, he could at least point to my being left-wing. SSI is a Democrat who spends much of his time telling us things about Seatttle and wider US politics, while taking a polite, friendly interest in Britain. He's critical of Johnson, but if you think that makes him in the pay of Russia, then two thirds of the British population are too. Don't be daft.
Regarding Covid, the latest wavelet or whatever one should call it now appears to subsiding again. I've been rather heartened by the public reaction to this latest hump. Outside of a few shrill cameo appearances from what is left of the zerocovidians, there has been a near absence of the usual hysteria and – by and large – people are ignoring it and going about their lives. Masking is virtually gone. Outside east Asia and Godalming, normal life is surging back.
My only question is whether we can now rid ourselves of the daily updates? They seem increasingly pointless reminders of a grim past, a one-way ticket to permanent anxiety that is serving little real purpose. The monthly ONS report should suffice.
Too early. Hospitalizations high in Scotland, currently. I find the tables useful and miss the population corrected numbers, actually. But TBF I could look that up on the gov.uk site ...
24 full-sample Westminster voting intention polls were conducted* in Scotland during 2021.
To date in 2022: zero.
Something’s up.
(*published)
Hmm. Niot having [edit] 6 in 3 months feels like it's getting more than a stat fluctuation, especially as you'd expect spacing to be non-random to begin with (ie more evenly spaced than the null hypothesis).
In 2021, what proportion of the - as you say - published polls were funded by Unionist parties or media, do you know?
87.5% of the 2021 polls were published by Unionist media. That they appear to have suddenly desisted (or at least desisted from publishing the findings) speaks volumes.
Mm, that's about 7/8 - so that leaves just 3 polls with non-Unionist funders. One every four months on average. And we're only three momths into 2022. Barring posh Bayesian analysis, a very rough conclusion is that we can't legitimately rule out the null hypothesis that the non-Unionist funders are behaving normally, all other things equal. Which is a massive contrast.
The non-Unionist funder/publisher is James Kelly, formerly of this parish. I’m pretty sure he jumped ship to Alba. Not sure he’ll have the resources to commission polls now.
24 full-sample Westminster voting intention polls were conducted* in Scotland during 2021.
To date in 2022: zero.
Something’s up.
(*published)
Hmm. Niot having [edit] 6 in 3 months feels like it's getting more than a stat fluctuation, especially as you'd expect spacing to be non-random to begin with (ie more evenly spaced than the null hypothesis).
In 2021, what proportion of the - as you say - published polls were funded by Unionist parties or media, do you know?
87.5% of the 2021 polls were published by Unionist media. That they appear to have suddenly desisted (or at least desisted from publishing the findings) speaks volumes.
Mm, that's about 7/8 - so that leaves just 3 polls with non-Unionist funders. One every four months on average. And we're only three momths into 2022. Barring posh Bayesian analysis, a very rough conclusion is that we can't legitimately rule out the null hypothesis that the non-Unionist funders are behaving normally, all other things equal. Which is a massive contrast.
How many of those polls were conducted in the run up to the 2021 election? Perhaps an innocent explanation.
If there is a big swing to indy, why haven't the indy-minded funders done a few polls? Cos it might mean Sturgeon actually has to run a referendum next year?
24 full-sample Westminster voting intention polls were conducted* in Scotland during 2021.
To date in 2022: zero.
Something’s up.
(*published)
Hmm. Niot having [edit] 6 in 3 months feels like it's getting more than a stat fluctuation, especially as you'd expect spacing to be non-random to begin with (ie more evenly spaced than the null hypothesis).
In 2021, what proportion of the - as you say - published polls were funded by Unionist parties or media, do you know?
87.5% of the 2021 polls were published by Unionist media. That they appear to have suddenly desisted (or at least desisted from publishing the findings) speaks volumes.
We have had 3 Savanta Comres Holyrood polls this year with the only substantial change being the SNP to Green switch on the list vote besides Labour gaining 2nd place in both votes but that's within MoE .
I'm sure the SNP is still in a commanding position with at least 45% of the vote in terms of Westminster polling although more updated polling to see if the Tories have regained 2nd place would be interesting. The SNP will do far less well in local elections though which is usually the case although they will still 'win'. It's interesting how well the Tories have done in real elections though (most local by elections plus Holyrood last year) and I can even see them gaining seats overall in May due to running extra candidates in strongholds even if they slump in Edinburgh.
24 full-sample Westminster voting intention polls were conducted* in Scotland during 2021.
To date in 2022: zero.
Something’s up.
(*published)
Hmm. Niot having [edit] 6 in 3 months feels like it's getting more than a stat fluctuation, especially as you'd expect spacing to be non-random to begin with (ie more evenly spaced than the null hypothesis).
In 2021, what proportion of the - as you say - published polls were funded by Unionist parties or media, do you know?
87.5% of the 2021 polls were published by Unionist media. That they appear to have suddenly desisted (or at least desisted from publishing the findings) speaks volumes.
Mm, that's about 7/8 - so that leaves just 3 polls with non-Unionist funders. One every four months on average. And we're only three momths into 2022. Barring posh Bayesian analysis, a very rough conclusion is that we can't legitimately rule out the null hypothesis that the non-Unionist funders are behaving normally, all other things equal. Which is a massive contrast.
The non-Unionist funder/publisher is James Kelly, formerly of this parish. I’m pretty sure he jumped ship to Alba. Not sure he’ll have the resources to commission polls now.
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
So somebody was asking, what did Putin get for all that Ruski money contributed to the Tory Party?
Besides influence peddling & security tampering.
I don't know why you're asking when you're clearly not really interested in the subject and just repeatedly parrot the same talking points.
I'm VERY interested in the subject of Boris Johnson - Tory Party ties to Putin.
Would assume that a real (as opposed to 'true") Conservative would also be concerned. But maybe not.
I've never seen any indication from you that you are asking in good faith. Pointing the finger at Boris Johnson and the UK more generally has been a convenient distraction for those who genuinely have been in the pay of Russia.
Well that ain't me . . . their checks have stopped clearing for some reason . . .
I won't return the coin and accuse YOU of bad faith, let alone being in the pay of Putin.
If your interest is in good faith, what's your take on Alexander Temerko giving "Ruski money" to the Tories and lobbying for military help for Ukraine? An elaborate smokescreen to hide Putin's *real* plans?
Perhaps. Don't know. Maybe a real (as opposed to "true) inquiry might provide some answers.
Politics international or otherwise, is rarely as straightforward (let alone straight) as you seem to think
For example, Secret Treaty of Dover.
You'd have to be either willfully blind or deliberately trying to muddy the waters to look at the moment of clarity brought about by Russia's invasion and think that it's Boris Johnson and the UK that have been in some kind of secret alliance with Russia.
True enough, which is why I don't think that, and have never said that.
Interesting, though, that you jump (or rather leap) to such conclusion. From excess of sophistry or credulity.
Put your words in your mouth, not mine. Just makes you look lame.
In your own words, in recent weeks you have alleged that Boris Johnson is a "Putinist stooge" and speculated about a "similarity between Putinist contamination/hampering of security services in Austria & UK under the auspices of Putinists at the highest levels of government".
24 full-sample Westminster voting intention polls were conducted* in Scotland during 2021.
To date in 2022: zero.
Something’s up.
(*published)
Hmm. Niot having [edit] 6 in 3 months feels like it's getting more than a stat fluctuation, especially as you'd expect spacing to be non-random to begin with (ie more evenly spaced than the null hypothesis).
In 2021, what proportion of the - as you say - published polls were funded by Unionist parties or media, do you know?
87.5% of the 2021 polls were published by Unionist media. That they appear to have suddenly desisted (or at least desisted from publishing the findings) speaks volumes.
Mm, that's about 7/8 - so that leaves just 3 polls with non-Unionist funders. One every four months on average. And we're only three momths into 2022. Barring posh Bayesian analysis, a very rough conclusion is that we can't legitimately rule out the null hypothesis that the non-Unionist funders are behaving normally, all other things equal. Which is a massive contrast.
How many of those polls were conducted in the run up to the 2021 election? Perhaps an innocent explanation.
If there is a big swing to indy, why haven't the indy-minded funders done a few polls? Cos it might mean Sturgeon actually has to run a referendum next year?
Different parliament, but admittedly a two for one.
Nah, they're dressing up a retreat from those two as part of a peace process but it's probably to reinforce other parts of the invasion force that have been hollowed out.
If their frontline units have taken 25-40% losses, as seems to be the case, then even if withdrawn from Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy, they will need some time to regroup before being committed to the front line again. And they will be further attrited during their retreat under fire.
There is some evidence that the Russian forces have already run through their normal reserve units, as T-60 tanks, presumably resurrected from storage, are now turning up dead on the battlefield.
Not withstanding the Russian casualties' witch have been high, as have the Ukrainians. Russia can and indeed appear to be pulling troops back over the boarder in the North east, which lets them rest and maybe even resupplied a bit, for where they can be moved to other parts of the war.
The Ukrainians even when they reach the boarder, cannot properly rest or be redeployed, as they don't know if the Russians will come back over that boarder. Thus giving an advantage to Russia.
I think you are vastly overestimating Russia's capacity to regroup, replace and resupply its mortally damaged elite units.
Vastly I think overstates it.
Yes, Russia is not going to get back full fighting strength in 5 days rest, or whatever, but it does not need to, it just needs a bit of rest, and can then be stronger than it is not, but not as strong as it was a month ago.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainians have also taken a lot of losses, and if they don't know when the Russians will be back cant rest in the same way,
thus comparative advantage to Russia.
I think you overestimate the ability of the Russian forces to quickly regroup.
For a start, a formation which has taken 20-30% losses, is not going to be in a hurry to get back into the fight. They are going to be shell shocked and desperate to avoid being in the next lot of losses.
Russia needs to pull fresh forces from other parts of the country. But in doing so, they weaken their hold there.
Now: can Russia take Mauripol and therefore hold a narrow sliver from the Donbass to the Crimea? Probably. But holding territory when the locals don't want you there, surrounded by land held by people who don't want you there...
And it's notable that the (admittedly Ukrainian) proposals circulated doesn't include any mention of the coastline.
Russia has an answer to that population Problem, they are deporting the population to camps in Russia, 60,000 from Mariupol, and over 400,000 total. thus problem solved for them, and they now have a bargaining chip, drop the sanctions or we don't give the people back, when they are released, Ukraine needs to find homes for them.
we can get an idea of the areas where the Russians are planning on keeping by where they are deporting people from, very very sad, and echoes, of soviet policy, Puyin is wicked, and sadly winning.
You keep repeating that he is winning.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
I hope he looses, I really want him to loose, we are all focusing on the way he is loosing, but in a complex pitcher, with things on both scales, and the outcome of many things still uncertain, it looks to me like he is wining. he could have been defeated, but its not happened, he will get a peace treaty more or less on his terms, and lie about the losses.
Early on in this conflict, I assumed that Putin was incredibly smart, and had wargamed every angle. Essentially, this man made tens (or hundreds) of billions, consolidated his hold on Russia, crushed rebellious provinces, etc.
Basically, like many others, I assumed that Putin was playing 5D chess.
We've all been slow to respond to new information. Putin wasn't playing 5D chess: he was woefully ignorant of the capabilities of his own armed forces, and of the likely resistance of the Ukrainians. He massively miscalculated and has taken enormous damage.
I think you are still of the view that Russia is a military superpower that just needs to reorient their forces to deal a knock out blow. And I think that is wrong. Or, at least, it ignores the fact that what remains of the Russian forces outside Ukraine is either (a) conscripts, (b) holding down other rebellious provinces or (c) Putin's own personal security detail in Moscow.
Now, can they grind the Ukrainians into a bloody stalemate in the East? Probably. But that isn't victory for Russia. That's a continued crushing cost, as they tip more men and weapons into a part of a foreign country that doesn't want them.
And every day Russia remains in this fight, the West weans itself a little more off of Russia's energy.
Winter War 1939-40 was both a major setback for Soviet military AND a huge wakeup call.
Barbarosa in 1941 showed that Stalin & Co. had not yet fully woken up. But German (and western) assumption that USSR was nothing but a paper tiger proved mistaken, to put it mildly.
However, one thing that Soviet had in 1942-45 was massive support from US (Lend Lease) and UK. Somehow don't see THAT happening. Or even much aid from China save for sanctions busting.
In a second tweet, Lord Lebedev added: "And in the spirit of transparency here is a text to me from Keir Starmer. 'Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir'."
He continued: "There's a war in Europe. Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo. What's become of you UK Labour? #shadowofyourformerself."
So somebody was asking, what did Putin get for all that Ruski money contributed to the Tory Party?
Besides influence peddling & security tampering.
I don't know why you're asking when you're clearly not really interested in the subject and just repeatedly parrot the same talking points.
I'm VERY interested in the subject of Boris Johnson - Tory Party ties to Putin.
Would assume that a real (as opposed to 'true") Conservative would also be concerned. But maybe not.
I've never seen any indication from you that you are asking in good faith. Pointing the finger at Boris Johnson and the UK more generally has been a convenient distraction for those who genuinely have been in the pay of Russia.
"for those who genuinely have been in the pay of Russia" - you mean the Conservative Party? Can you honestly say that the "nothing to see here, move along" approach is the one you would take had PM Starmer overriden the security services concerns about Lebedev's gong?
24 full-sample Westminster voting intention polls were conducted* in Scotland during 2021.
To date in 2022: zero.
Something’s up.
(*published)
Hmm. Niot having [edit] 6 in 3 months feels like it's getting more than a stat fluctuation, especially as you'd expect spacing to be non-random to begin with (ie more evenly spaced than the null hypothesis).
In 2021, what proportion of the - as you say - published polls were funded by Unionist parties or media, do you know?
87.5% of the 2021 polls were published by Unionist media. That they appear to have suddenly desisted (or at least desisted from publishing the findings) speaks volumes.
Mm, that's about 7/8 - so that leaves just 3 polls with non-Unionist funders. One every four months on average. And we're only three momths into 2022. Barring posh Bayesian analysis, a very rough conclusion is that we can't legitimately rule out the null hypothesis that the non-Unionist funders are behaving normally, all other things equal. Which is a massive contrast.
How many of those polls were conducted in the run up to the 2021 election? Perhaps an innocent explanation.
If there is a big swing to indy, why haven't the indy-minded funders done a few polls? Cos it might mean Sturgeon actually has to run a referendum next year?
17 pre-election 7 post-election
So, we’d still expect about 1 a month. None in 3 months is just odd. I reckon they’ve commissioned them, but didn’t like the numbers. There is no obligation to publish.
Cummings has gone awfully quiet. What's his next move?
He's not been quiet. He sent out another long email covering various governmental failings related to covid and other matters yesterday.
Dominic Cummings has stopped using Twitter so if Twitter is the real world, Cummings will seem to be quiet. As you say, he is emailing, substacking and Q&A-ing. His latest idea is the MAD doctrine of nuclear deterrence is badly flawed and we're all going to die.
Oh no, just when I'd gone the other way! I started off thinking it fatally flawed, then got to where I am now - that it not only works but it's the only thing which can work as long as WMD nukes exist.
I worked hard to get here too. It was key to peace of mind. So I will NOT be reading Cummings on the matter.
I think you are a better strategic thinker than Cummings based on your ending positions on this matter.
So long as there are any NW, MAD makes sense. The other option is total subservience to those who have NW and are willing to use them (or threaten to use them in a credible manner). It does not mean that the MAD outcome is 100% safe. It just means it is the best stable(-ish) equilibrium.
Thanks. I am pondering whether to buy the book. Do you have a view?
The reason I am hesitant is that there is nothing new in analyzing politico-military-economic issues through the prism of what the other side knows and thinks. That is, after all, the very basis of both game theory and behavioural economics. So does this book really add a new perspective on MAD?
I ask, because with my involvement with assessing societal risks of synthetic biology, I have come across far too many people who, new to the field, keep on reinventing the wheel thinking that they have insights that we, who have been doing it for decades, do not. Time is too precious.
Payne has written a more recent book on the subject. I know nothing except that Cummings has read and will be summarising them. I believe that part of it is based on what we discovered during Glasnost was that everything the Pentagon thought it knew about Soviet military thinking was wrong.
Thanks.
We (and I use 'we' appropriately as I was intimately involved) had the same experience with Saddam. Some key of our key assessments about his thinking on WMD post 1991 turned out to miss the mark. We know this because of the Saddam tapes (to which I've had access), which recorded Saddam's meetings with his top advisors over the period in question and which were captured after the fall of the regime. While the record is incomplete, it is sufficient to show that we clearly misunderstood some key parts of their thinking and hence actions.
24 full-sample Westminster voting intention polls were conducted* in Scotland during 2021.
To date in 2022: zero.
Something’s up.
(*published)
Hmm. Niot having [edit] 6 in 3 months feels like it's getting more than a stat fluctuation, especially as you'd expect spacing to be non-random to begin with (ie more evenly spaced than the null hypothesis).
In 2021, what proportion of the - as you say - published polls were funded by Unionist parties or media, do you know?
87.5% of the 2021 polls were published by Unionist media. That they appear to have suddenly desisted (or at least desisted from publishing the findings) speaks volumes.
Mm, that's about 7/8 - so that leaves just 3 polls with non-Unionist funders. One every four months on average. And we're only three momths into 2022. Barring posh Bayesian analysis, a very rough conclusion is that we can't legitimately rule out the null hypothesis that the non-Unionist funders are behaving normally, all other things equal. Which is a massive contrast.
How many of those polls were conducted in the run up to the 2021 election? Perhaps an innocent explanation.
If there is a big swing to indy, why haven't the indy-minded funders done a few polls? Cos it might mean Sturgeon actually has to run a referendum next year?
Different parliament, but admittedly a two for one.
Yeah, would make sense to ask the questions together. I know next to nothing about polling though.
If we saw indy yes at 55+ (maybe 60+?) then a wildcat referendum would be hard to resist.
Comments
We have been lucky to date. That is no guarantee that we will be lucky going forward.
You'd think it would get a bit dull after a while, though. Where's the adventure? Sailing the Atlantic sounds much more fun.
I want to see the water, uncluttered by oversized bathtubs.
You must think we're all thick.
Negotiating down nuclear stockpiles is the only sane approach, but eliminating them is problematic/impossible.
MAD doesn't have to apply to the entire planet - just the elites in every country possessing nuclear weapons.
I can see a scenario where every nation on earth being nuclear armed would probably increase the security of some previously non-nuclear countries (Iran for instance, Syria, most of the former CIS countries including Ukraine) but in total it would make the world more dangerous. It's a bit of a tragedy of the commons situation - makes sense for individual countries to proliferate but is net worse for the safety of the whole world.
I expect China being nuclear armed has had no discernible benefit for its security in recent years because it is so large militarily anyway. So too Britain and France for a different reason, because they are under the NATO and US nuclear umbrella, and North Korea because of Chinese protection. Whereas India and Pakistan have probably avoided major conflict because they have nukes.
Nuclear weapons of course only have any meaning in parts of the world where nation states invade other nation states. Almost completely irrelevant in Latin America or Sub-Saharan Africa where the vast majority of conflict has been either civil war and/or narcotics gang related.
Saying MAD is rubbish because it relies on an element of luck is nonsense when every other potential solution also relies on luck, mostly to an even greater extent.
And was told (I paraphrase) bite your fool colonial tongue, the men and women assisting HM and the rest are among Britain's best and brightest.
Personally think that cack-handed mis-management of the recent Royal Tour of West Indies is a BIG argument in favor of my thesis.
Unless of course you believe the Daily Mail. Which on this subject (at least) is less credible than even Boris Johnson 24/7?
PS Cue HYUFD telling me I can never be a Tory.
There was a documentary on these boat transporters a couple of years ago, quite the operation to get several boats loaded onto the big ship. https://youtube.com/watch?v=yDJfx44AoG8
Would assume that a real (as opposed to 'true") Conservative would also be concerned. But maybe not.
I think if I were to get a multi-million pound gin palace I'd opt for the more nautical ocean-going, you know the kind of thing: polished teak, some pretence at sails, round portholes, the kind of boat that might feature in a Ralph Lauren ad shot somewhere off the coast of Maine.
"The heroic failure of Cumbernauld
The idealism of the New Towns became an ugly reality
BY DANIEL KALDER"
https://unherd.com/2022/03/the-heroic-failure-of-cumbernauld/
I won't return the coin and accuse YOU of bad faith, let alone being in the pay of Putin.
It will not, for example, stop the use of battlefield nukes in Ukraine- a claim that is made very often by talking heads both in the mainstream media and online. The Russians simply don't regard battlefield nukes as being anything other than a bigger bang. It is one part of their arsenal which will be brought into use if they feel it can give them a tactical advantage on the battlefield. The same goes for chemical weapons. What they do understand is the potential it has to shock the West and push them off balance in a way that the Russians can then take advantage of.
Thankfully our own intelligence and planning people in the military realise this and operate on the expectation that the Russians will use battlefield nukes at some point just as they have chemical weapons. The interesting problem is going to be convincing Western politicians that this is not, in Russian eyes, the escalation they perceive it to be.
My guess is that your friend's was NOT that kind of yacht?
Re Donbass: yes, that is left open. Likewise, there's no mention of the coast.
The Ukrainian proposals seem to be: 2014 borders, but we get to join the EU and have effective NATO membership. And you get to claim that you kept us out of NATO and got international recognition for the Crimea.
In my mind, 'winning' would involve his country being in a better position than five weeks ago, and no matter how I strain, I can't see that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/60907259
I am not actually arguing for the fact they should have imposed more constraints. Just that some of what they did was, as far as I can see, pretty useless and they made some extremely bad mistakes which resulted in many more deaths than necessary but which could have been avoided and not necessarily with any greater cost.
As always my argument would be for better governance not more governance.
Q1 Were Soviet engineering standards, maintenance and design better at the end of 4 years of total war, the most destructive in human history, than Russian ones now?
Q2 Would a modern Russian tank start up with a bit of fettling after sitting on a plinth for 70 years?
And NOT just in UK, but also in USA - and do NOT mean just Republicans either.
Politics international or otherwise, is rarely as straightforward (let alone straight) as you seem to think
For example, Secret Treaty of Dover.
The IS-3 on a monument being started and driven off was a diesel with WW2 tech so infinitely simpler. Not a chip in sight. I'm not even sure if you needed functioning electrics for much more than the starter motor, at a pinch. And that could be lashed up. The other point is that the same basic V-2 diesel engine was - is - still being used in much Soviet designed kit so presumably the spares would fit. I'd think of the diesel injectors in particular, but IANAE. Or you could whip out the old engine and fit the new one in.
PLus it wouldn't have been on the plinth since 1945, necessarily, any morer than a Centurion Mk 5 outside the Tank Museum was put there in 1945 - they are both 1945-ish designs but ...
It's like railways. It's, counterintuitively, easier to get a Stephenson or Gresley locomotive running today than a 1960s diesel-electric, AIUI. Or a 1930s Gypsy Moth than a 1950s jet. Complexity, plastics etc to deteriorate, no spares now and one can't easily knock up new ones ...
I wonder in 40 years time, assuming the things haven't rusted, whether an old Beetle would be easier to get going than one of those modern thingies full of computer chips ...
Ukrainian forces need to know that just because the international community is on their side, that does not give them the freedom to commit war crimes.
I’ll be completely open and honest, but happy to be corrected where wrong.
Without doubt now, over the last week, apart from Sleepy Joe, there is definite effort from all sides to dial down the rhetoric. As far as can trust the Moscow military, there are signs the mission statement is much smaller than it was. Liz Truss announcement on lifting sanctions was so vague we can argue what she meant, but it was definitely on they way to once Zelenskyy and Putin sign same bit of paper, sanctions will be at an end. I pray that soon all this war horror just becomes history. But I can’t see ceasefire and down ramp soon based on the vague unworkable nonsense currently being talked up as a deal. Despite how well you have explained and sold it to me. It’s something only workable on the detail.
If UK signed up, it would be the worst thing we’ve signed since France pushing aggressively to start First World War by signing us into the Entente Cordial
Interesting seats forecast for Northern Ireland, particularly the TUV gains and for the SDLP who will possibly get squeezed:
SF 25 (-2)
DUP 18 (-10)
Alliance 14 (+6)
UUP 12 (+2)
SDLP 9 (-2)
TUV 6 (+5)
Grn 2 (-)
PBP 2 (+1)
Ind U 2 (+1)
Would work out as Unionist 38 (-2), Nationalist 36 (-4), other 16 (+6)
Has that changed?
But I'm not very optimistic. Eg Ukraine gave them up and people are now saying this only proves the idiocy of it. A policy of no Trident here, for all its rationality, is electoral death. Japan is talking about going nuclear. Kim is a role model for how an otherwise relatively insignificant country and leader gets global bandwidth by developing nukes. Israel's possession of them is both justified by Saudi's enormous military spending and Iran's ambitions and at the same time feeds those 2 things. Then India/Pakistan, China, and a Russia with Putin.
You need a powerful and positive imagination to visualize the next 75 years being safer than the last 75. But, short term, let's look on the bright side, I don't think there's much nuclear escalation risk with this war that's going on now, unprovoked crime of aggression though it undeniably is.
Interesting, though, that you jump (or rather leap) to such conclusion. From excess of sophistry or credulity.
Put your words in your mouth, not mine. Just makes you look lame.
My only question is whether we can now rid ourselves of the daily updates? They seem increasingly pointless reminders of a grim past, a one-way ticket to permanent anxiety that is serving little real purpose. The monthly ONS report should suffice.
"Win a year of fun at Merlin Entertainments"
I worry, and I'd be interested if anyone knows how to buy NLAWs on ebay.
Basically, like many others, I assumed that Putin was playing 5D chess.
We've all been slow to respond to new information. Putin wasn't playing 5D chess: he was woefully ignorant of the capabilities of his own armed forces, and of the likely resistance of the Ukrainians. He massively miscalculated and has taken enormous damage.
I think you are still of the view that Russia is a military superpower that just needs to reorient their forces to deal a knock out blow. And I think that is wrong. Or, at least, it ignores the fact that what remains of the Russian forces outside Ukraine is either (a) conscripts, (b) holding down other rebellious provinces or (c) Putin's own personal security detail in Moscow.
Now, can they grind the Ukrainians into a bloody stalemate in the East? Probably. But that isn't victory for Russia. That's a continued crushing cost, as they tip more men and weapons into a part of a foreign country that doesn't want them.
And every day Russia remains in this fight, the West weans itself a little more off of Russia's energy.
- global economic slowdown and less production
- increased oil price leading to reduced vehicle mileage and energy use
- slowdown in Russian exploration and extraction due to sanctions
- trigger for Europe to speed up weaning itself off fossil fuels
+ temporary increased coal burning
+ increased oil price spurs further exploration and production of shale oil and gas
+ Iran and Venezuela ramp up production
+ Russia ceases any meaningful efforts (if they ever existed) to reduce its own emissions
+ domestic political agenda shifts from net zero to subsidising car drivers
Long term this has surely got to speed up Western economies' transition to net zero but I suspect short term it's probably an unhelpful distraction.
On other hand, settlement that gives him what he already had ante bellum (de facto if not de jure which is not that big a deal, just ask the PM and his cabinet) is NOT a "massive territorial gain".
And strengthening of Ukrainian national identity and of NATO, and host of other developments, is a massive self-defeat for Putin.
I only really know about shopping, and they are allowed to use dollars for shopping
Having explained the shopping situation, I’ll leave oil questions to the sites oil experts 🙂
If there is a big swing to indy, why haven't the indy-minded funders done a few polls? Cos it might mean Sturgeon actually has to run a referendum next year?
I'm sure the SNP is still in a commanding position with at least 45% of the vote in terms of Westminster polling although more updated polling to see if the Tories have regained 2nd place would be interesting. The SNP will do far less well in local elections though which is usually the case although they will still 'win'. It's interesting how well the Tories have done in real elections though (most local by elections plus Holyrood last year) and I can even see them gaining seats overall in May due to running extra candidates in strongholds even if they slump in Edinburgh.
Barbarosa in 1941 showed that Stalin & Co. had not yet fully woken up. But German (and western) assumption that USSR was nothing but a paper tiger proved mistaken, to put it mildly.
However, one thing that Soviet had in 1942-45 was massive support from US (Lend Lease) and UK. Somehow don't see THAT happening. Or even much aid from China save for sanctions busting.
7 post-election
So, we’d still expect about 1 a month.
None in 3 months is just odd.
I reckon they’ve commissioned them, but didn’t like the numbers. There is no obligation to publish.
We (and I use 'we' appropriately as I was intimately involved) had the same experience with Saddam. Some key of our key assessments about his thinking on WMD post 1991 turned out to miss the mark. We know this because of the Saddam tapes (to which I've had access), which recorded Saddam's meetings with his top advisors over the period in question and which were captured after the fall of the regime. While the record is incomplete, it is sufficient to show that we clearly misunderstood some key parts of their thinking and hence actions.
If we saw indy yes at 55+ (maybe 60+?) then a wildcat referendum would be hard to resist.